Effectiveness and Safety of Minimally Invasive Orthodontic Tooth Movement Acceleration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 98 (13) ◽  
pp. 1469-1479 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Fu ◽  
S. Liu ◽  
H. Zhao ◽  
M. Cao ◽  
R. Zhang

Doctors and patients attempt to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement with a minimally invasive surgery approach. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence of accelerated tooth movement in minimally invasive surgery and the adverse effects from it. A systematic search of the literature was performed in the electronic databases of PubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Medline and was complemented by a manual search until February 2019. The inclusion criteria were prospective clinical studies of patients treated with a fixed appliance, and the intervention was accelerated orthodontic treatment with minimally invasive surgery. Nineteen articles (538 participants) were included in the review: 9 studies assessed the rate of upper canine movement; 5 considered the treatment time; 1 evaluated the en masse retraction time; and 4 studied adverse effects. We performed a meta-analysis for the rate of canine movement and treatment time and described the results for the adverse effects in a systematic review. The results of the subgroup analysis according to micro-osteoperforation and piezocision were included in the study. No accelerated tooth movement was found in the micro-osteoperforation group. After flapless corticotomy procedures, increased tooth movement rates were identified by weighted mean differences of 0.63 (95%CI = 0.22, 1.03, P = 0.003) and 0.64 (95% CI, −25 to 1.53; P = 0.16) for 1 and 2 mo, respectively. The mean treatment time was 68.42 d (95% CI, −113.19 to −23.65; P = 0.003) less that than for minimally invasive surgery. Moreover, no significant adverse effect was found. Because of the high heterogeneity of the meta-analysis, the results must be validated by additional large-sample multicenter clinical trials. There is not sufficient evidence to support that the single use of micro-osteoperforation could accelerate tooth movement, and there is only low-quality evidence to prove that flapless corticotomy could accelerate tooth movement.

2017 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 924-938.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oluwaseun O. Akinduro ◽  
Panagiotis Kerezoudis ◽  
Mohammed Ali Alvi ◽  
Jang W. Yoon ◽  
Jamachi Eluchie ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Steven J. Kamper ◽  
Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo ◽  
Sidney M. Rubinstein ◽  
Jorm M. Nellensteijn ◽  
Wilco C. Peul ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mostafa Shahabee ◽  
Hooman Shafaee ◽  
Mostafa Abtahi ◽  
Abdolrasoul Rangrazi ◽  
Erfan Bardideh

Abstract Background The micro-osteoperforation can be used to increase the rate of tooth movement, simplify complex orthodontic movements, and also help adjust the anchorage but there are conflicting reports on the effectiveness and adverse effects of this intervention. Objectives The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of micro-osteoperforation on the rate of tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Search methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, ISI web of science, EMBASE, Scopus, and CENTRAL online databases for studies measuring the effects of micro-osteoperforation on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement from inception to February 2019 was performed. Selection criteria Based on the PICO model, human studies which evaluated the effects of MOP on the rate of tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were selected for this review. Data collection and analysis The relevant data from the eligible studies were extracted using piloted custom extraction forms. The data were combined and analysed using inverse-variance random-effect meta-analysis and the mean difference was used for comparing the outcome measures. Results Six randomized clinical trials were finally included in this meta-analysis. The rate of canine retraction per month was significantly higher in the MOP group [mean difference (MD) = 0.45 mm, 95% CI = 0.17–0.74]. These results were similar with regard to different malocclusions, the jaw on which it was performed, and MOP methods. The patients did not report any significant differences in terms of pain severity levels after MOP. With regard to the adverse effects, one study reported higher amounts of root resorption among patients undergoing MOP. Conclusions The rate of tooth movement was increased after performing MOP but in at least one study higher root resorption was observed. Therefore, the use of MOP can be recommended after weighing the benefits and disadvantages this intervention can bring for each patient. Registration The protocol for this review was registered via crd.york.ac.uk/prospero with the ID CRD42019115499.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document