A comparative evaluation of bite opening by temporary anchorage devices and Connecticut intrusion arch: An in vivo study

The Effects of Intrusion of Anterior Teeth by Skeletal Anchorage in Deep Bite Patients; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Deep bite is known as one of the most common malocclusions, and its treatment and retention are often challenging. The use of mini-screws has been suggested as an ideal method for the intrusion of incisors in deep-bite patients. Still, there are conflicting reports regarding the superiority of this method compared to other common treatments. Aim: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of the intrusion of anterior teeth by skeletal anchorage in deep bite patients. Methods: From the beginning to 15 September 2022, articles on the topic of interest were searched in electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane’s CENTRAL. Additionally, a hand search for pertinent studies and a search of the grey literature were carried out. After the selection of eligible studies, data extraction was performed using piloted forms. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses were used to combine the outcome measures of dental indices, skeletal cephalometric indices, and dental cephalometric indices. Results: A total of 15 studies (6 RCT; 9 CCT) were included in the systematic review and 14 were used in the meta-analyses. The differences in overbite changes (MD = −0.45, p = 0.04), true incisor intrusion [u1-pp] (MD = −0.62, p = 0.003) and molar extrusion [u6-pp] (MD = −0.40, p = 0.01) were statistically significant and TADs showed better treatment results than other intrusion methods (segmented intrusion arch, utility arch, J hook headgear). No significant differences regarding overjet, molar and incisor tipping, and skeletal indices between mini-screw and other intrusion methods could be found. Conclusion: The use of mini-screws leads to lower overbite and higher true intrusion (about 0.45 and 0.62 mm, respectively) compared to the use of other methods for intruding upper incisors. Furthermore, the effect of TAD on extrusion of molar teeth is less (by 0.4 mm) than other methods.

Orthodontic Intrusion Using Temporary Anchorage Devices Compared to Other Orthodontic Intrusion Methods: A Systematic Review

Objective

To systemically review all clinical trials that evaluate the effectiveness of orthodontic intrusion using bone anchorage devices versus using other orthodontic techniques in adult patients.

Material and Methods

All randomized, controlled clinical trials and prospective studies that compare the use of TADs in intrusion versus alternative devices from the year 2000 to 2019 were searched using various electronic databases. Databases used include Pubmed, Cochrane, Scopus, Lilacs, and ScienceDirect. Selection was initially made by reading the titles and abstracts of potential suitable studies. The final selection was made after reading the full retrieved articles. A methodological score developed by Lagravère was used to assess the quality of evidence. The selection process was illustrated using a PRISMA flow chart.

Results

A total of 3942 articles were retrieved, from which only two randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. This presented a low to medium level of evidence to support the hypothesis that TADs are more effective than other orthodontic intrusion techniques for intruding upper incisors and improving upper incisor to lip relation while eliminating the adverse effect of compromising vertical posterior anchorage. Shorter treatment times and less root resorption were found in the TAD group.

Conclusion

There is insufficient evidence to state that TADs can be used as orthodontic anchorage to effectively intrude the incisors without the need for patient cooperation. Future high quality prospective randomized clinical trials are required.

Effectiveness of miniscrew-supported maxillary incisor intrusion in deep-bite correction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate systematically the effectiveness of miniscrew-supported maxillary incisor intrusion compared with other nonsurgical intrusive mechanics for deep-bite correction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Unrestricted electronic searches in Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, LILACS, and Cochrane's CENTRAL as well as manual searches were conducted up to August 2019. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Study selection, data extraction, and bias assessment were done by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used, and the quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. A random-effects meta-analysis of continuous data, with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs), was used.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included in the quantitative synthesis, and the overall quality of evidence was very low to low. When compared with intrusion arches, miniscrews resulted in a more efficient deep-bite reduction with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.48 (95% CI, -0.89 to -0.07). When miniscrews were used, a statistically significant difference was observed favoring less maxillary molar extrusion (SMD, -0.86; 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.27) and more incisor intrusion as measured from centroid to palatal plane (SMD, -0.95; 95% CI, -1.41 to -0.49). Results also showed a statistically nonsignificant difference regarding the amount of resultant root resorption between miniscrews and intrusion arches.

CONCLUSIONS

There is weak evidence indicating efficient deep-bite correction using miniscrews. Root resorption seems to be an associated adverse effect that occurs regardless of the intrusive mechanics used. These conclusions should be viewed with great caution as further well-designed long-term research is recommended.