Development and use of a taxonomy to carry out a systematic review of the literature on methods described to effect distal movement of maxillary molars

Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated and compared the completeness of reporting of abstracts of orthodontics systematic reviews before and after the publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Abstracts Checklist (PRISMA-A).

METHODS

Abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics published in PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases before March 23, 2018, that met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, were evaluated using the 12 items of PRISMA-A, scoring each item from 0 to 2. Abstracts were classified into 2 groups: before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist. Three calibrated evaluators (intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa > 0.8) assessed the scores for compliance with the checklist. The number of authors, country of affiliation of the first author, performance of meta-analysis, and topic of the article were recorded. A regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between abstract characteristics and the PRISMA-A scores.

RESULTS

Of 1034 abstracts evaluated, 389 were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-A score was 53.39 (95% CI, 51.83-54.96). The overall score for studies published after the publication of the checklist was significantly higher than for studies published before (P ≤ 0.0001). The components returning significantly higher scores after publication of PRISMA-A were title (P = 0.024), information from databases (P = 0.026), risk of bias (P ≤ 0.0001), included studies (P ≤ 0.0001), synthesis of results (P ≤ 0.0001), interpretation of results (P = 0.035), financing and conflict of interest (P ≤ 0.0001), and registration (P ≤ 0.0001). These results showed the positive effect of PRISMA-A had on the quality of reporting of orthodontics systematic reviews. Nevertheless, the poor adherence revealed that there is still need for improvement in the quality of abstract reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting of abstracts of orthodontic systematic reviews and meta-analyses increased after the introduction of PRISMA-A.

Extra-oral Appliances in Orthodontic Treatment

Extra-oral appliances are used in orthodontics to apply forces to the jaws, dentition or both and the popularity of these appliances is cyclical. Although the use of retraction headgear for the management of Class II malocclusion has declined over the last 20 years with the refinement of non-compliance approaches, including temporary anchorage devices, headgear still has a useful role in orthodontics. The use of protraction headgear has increased as more evidence of its effectiveness for the treatment of Class lIl malocclusion has become available. This paper describes the mechanics and contemporary uses of headgear in orthodontics for primary care dentists and specialist orthodontists. CPD/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Extra-oral appliances have specific uses in orthodontic biomechanics. Clinicians using retraction headgear and protraction headgear should be familiar with their clinical indications, the potential problems and how these can be avoided.

Orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

When orthodontic treatment is provided with fixed appliances, it is sometimes necessary to move the upper molar teeth backwards (distalise) to create space or help to overcome anchorage requirements. This can be achieved with the use of extraoral or intraoral appliances. The most common appliance is extraoral headgear, which requires considerable patient co-operation. Further, reports of serious injuries have been published. Intraoral appliances have been developed to overcome such shortcomings. The comparative effects of extraoral and intraoral appliances have not been fully evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 10 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 10 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 10 December 2012). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials involving the use of removable or fixed orthodontic appliances intended to distalise upper first molars in children and adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors to clarify the inclusion criteria of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies, reporting data from 354 participants, were included in this review, the majority of which were carried out in a university dental hospital setting. The studies were published between 2005 and 2011 and were conducted in Europe and in Brazil. The age range of participants was from nine to 15 years, with an even distribution of males and females in seven of the studies, and a slight predominance of female patients in three of the studies. The quality of the studies was generally poor; seven studies were at an overall high risk of bias, three studies were at an unclear risk of bias, and we judged no study to be at low risk of bias.We carried out random-effects meta-analyses as appropriate for the primary clinical outcomes of movement of upper first molars (mm), and loss of anterior anchorage, where there were sufficient data reported in the primary studies. Four studies, involving 159 participants, compared a distalising appliance to an untreated control. Meta-analyses were not undertaken for all primary outcomes due to incomplete reporting of all summary statistics, expected outcomes, and differences between the types of appliances. The degree and direction of molar movement and loss of anterior anchorage varied with the type of appliance. Four studies, involving 150 participants, compared a distalising appliance versus headgear. The mean molar movement for intraoral distalising appliances was -2.20 mm and -1.04 mm for headgear. There was a statistically significant difference in mean distal molar movement (mean difference (MD) -1.45 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.74 to -0.15) favouring intraoral appliances compared to headgear (four studies, high or unclear risk of bias, 150 participants analysed). However, a statistically significant difference in mean mesial upper incisor movement (MD 1.82 mm; 95% CI 1.39 to 2.24) and overjet (fixed-effect: MD 1.64 mm; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.02; two studies, unclear risk of bias, 70 participants analysed) favoured headgear, i.e. there was less loss of anterior anchorage with headgear. We reported direct comparisons of intraoral appliances narratively due to the variation in interventions (three studies, high or unclear risk of bias, 93 participants randomised). All appliances were reported to provide some degree of distal movement, and loss of anterior anchorage varied with the type of appliance.No included studies reported on the incidence of adverse effects (harm, injury), number of attendances or rate of non-compliance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested that intraoral appliances are more effective than headgear in distalising upper first molars. However, this effect is counteracted by loss of anterior anchorage, which was not found to occur with headgear when compared with intraoral distalising appliance in a small number of studies. The number of trials assessing the effects of orthodontic treatment for distilisation is low, and the current evidence is of low or very low quality.

Effects of unilateral molar distalization with a modified pendulum appliance

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate skeletal and dentoalveolar changes due to unilateral distalization and to determine side effects.

METHODS

Cephalograms and dental casts before and after distal movement of the maxillary molars with pendulum appliances in 15 consecutively treated patients (5 girls and 10 boys, 12.06 +/- 1.32 years), were included in this study. The duration of distalization was 8.46 +/- 2.23 months.

RESULTS

Cephalometric analysis showed no remarkable growth between the 2 measurement times. The mean value for distalization of the first molars was 3.83 +/- 1.09 mm, with distal tipping of 6.45 degrees . The maxillary second molars were also moved distally 2.83 +/- 1.32 mm and tipped distally 14.7 degrees . No significant changes in the position of the third molars were measured. The mean reciprocal mesial movement of the premolars was 1.18 +/- 1.31 mm, with distal tipping of 1.94 degrees . The incisors moved 0.84 +/- 0.79 mm mesially, with mesial tipping of 0.02 degrees and extrusion of 1.21 mm. There was also a significant influence on the contralateral anchorage unit. However, unilateral distalization reduced incisor proclination and induced moderate distal movement of the contralateral anchorage unit based on rotation around a virtual axis perpendicular to the Nance button.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective distal molar movement and less anchorage loss at the front teeth are advantages of unilateral distalization.

Essix-based molar distalization appliance

A new design of molar distalization appliance and its fabrication are described in this article. This case report illustrates distal movement of mandibular molars with negligible loss of anterior anchorage. This new vacuum-formed Essix appliance can be a reasonable alternative to conventional appliances.