Evaluating the effect of the temporal intra-oral skeletal anchorage device (TISADs) for facilitating the anchorage reinforcement: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Abstract

Objective: In this meta-analysis and systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the effects of the TISADs to facilitates anchorage reinforcement.
Methods:  PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ISI, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, OpenGrey, and Google Scholar, were used from the electronic databases until 2020 perform systematic literature. Two reviewers extracted data blindly and independently from various abstracts as well as full texts of articles they considered for data extraction. Using the Cochrane collaboration's tool, we evaluated the publications' quality. Then, we computed the mean difference of TISADs and conventional anchorage groups with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%, restricted maximum likelihood (REML), and random effect model of the mesial movement of molars and their tipping. Moreover, we employed Stata/MP 16 that has been considered the most rapid version of Stata for evaluating meta-analysis.
Results: According to our electronic searches, 134 topics and abstracts with potential relevance were identified according to the research design. Finally, five publications matched the required inclusion criteria of the study. In addition, the Cochrane collaboration instrument exhibited all studies with low to moderate biases. Also, the mean difference of mesial molar movement showed less anchorage loss in the TISADs group vs. the controls, and a significant difference between these two groups (MD= -1.74 with a CI of 95%, -2.76, -0.71. P = 0.00).
Conclusions: TISADs can reduce treatment time, and TISADs are more effective in enables the anchorage than other methods and higher tipping in the TISADs.
share this Article by

References

[1] Lai EH, Yao CC, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ. Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2008;134(5):636-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.017.
[2] Park CO, Sa'aed NL, Bayome M, Park JH, Kook YA, Park YS, Han SH. Comparison of treatment effects between the modified C-palatal plate and cervical pull headgear for total arch distalization in adults. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics. 2017;47(6):375-83. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2017.47.6.375.
[3] Melsen B, Bosch C. Different approaches to anchorage: a survey and an evaluation. The Angle Orthodontist. 1997;67(1):23-30. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1997)067<0023:DATAAS>2.3.CO;2.
[4] Wahl N. Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 15: Skeletal anchorage. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. 2008;134(5):707-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.015.
[5] Alharbi F, Almuzian M, Bearn D. Anchorage effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrews compared to headgear and transpalatal arches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2019;77(2):88-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2018.1508742.
[6] Kyung HM. Progress of Anchorage in Lingual Orthodontic Treatment. Temporary Anchorage Devices in Clinical Orthodontics. 2020:489-96. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119513636.ch47.
[7] Antoszewska-Smith J, Sarul M, Łyczek J, Konopka T, Kawala B. Effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants in anchorage reinforcement during en-masse retraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2017;151(3):440-55.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.029.
[8] Diar-Bakirly S, Feres MF, Saltaji H, Flores-Mir C, El-Bialy T. Effectiveness of the transpalatal arch in controlling orthodontic anchorage in maxillary premolar extraction cases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Angle Orthodontist. 2017;87(1):147-58. https://doi.org/10.2319/021216-120.1.
[9] Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Orthodontic anchorage: a systematic review. The Angle Orthodontist. 2006 May;76(3):493-501. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0493:OA]2.0.CO;2.
[10] Kuroda S, Sugawara Y, Deguchi T, Kyung HM, Takano-Yamamoto T. Clinical use of miniscrew implants as orthodontic anchorage: success rates and postoperative discomfort. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2007;131(1):9-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.032.
[11] Jing Z, Wu Y, Jiang W, Zhao L, Jing D, Zhang N, Cao X, Xu Z, Zhao Z. Factors Affecting the Clinical Success Rate of Miniscrew Implants for Orthodontic Treatment. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2016;31(4):835-841.
[12] Antoszewska J, Papadopoulos MA, Park HS, Ludwig B. Five-year experience with orthodontic miniscrew implants: a retrospective investigation of factors influencing success rates. American Journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. 2009;136(2):158-e1.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.03.032.
[13] Barthélemi S, Desoutter A, Souaré F, Cuisinier F. Effectiveness of anchorage with temporary anchorage devices during anterior maxillary tooth retraction: A randomized clinical trial. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics. 2019;49(5):279-85. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2019.49.5.279.
[14] Benson PE, Tinsley D, O’Dwyer JJ, Majumdar A, Doyle P, Sandler PJ. Midpalatal implants vs headgear for orthodontic anchorage—a randomized clinical trial: cephalometric results. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. 2007;132(5):606-15.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.040.
[15] Sandler J, Benson PE, Doyle P, Majumder A, O’Dwyer J, Speight P, Thiruvenkatachari B, Tinsley D. Palatal implants are a good conventional to headgear: a randomized trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2008;133(1):51-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.032.
[16] Becker K, Pliska A, Busch C, Wilmes B, Wolf M, Drescher D. Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of implant dentistry. 2018;4(1):35.DOI: 10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4.
[17] Khlef HN, Hajeer MY, Ajaj MA, Heshmeh O. Evaluation of treatment outcomes of en masse retraction with temporary skeletal anchorage devices in comparison with two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with dentoalveolar protrusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Contemporary clinical dentistry. 2018;9(4):513-523. doi:10.4103/ccd.ccd_661_18.
[18] Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Patil S. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2008;134(6):803-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.025.
[19] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Altman D, Antes G, Atkins D, Barbour V, Barrowman N, Berlin JA, Clark J. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement (Chinese edition). Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine. 2009;7(9):889-96. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
[20] Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savović J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj. 2011;343:d5928.
[21] Ganzer N, Feldmann I, Petrén S, Bondemark L. A cost-effectiveness analysis of anchorage reinforcement with miniscrews and molar blocks in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. European journal of orthodontics. 2019;41(2):180-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjy041.
[22] Lee AY, Kim YH. Comparison of movement of the upper dentition according to anchorage method: orthodontic mini-implant versus conventional anchorage reinforcement in Class I malocclusion. ISRN dentistry. 2011. https://doi.org/10.5402/2011/321206.
[23] Sandler J, Murray A, Thiruvenkatachari B, Gutierrez R, Speight P, O’Brien K. Effectiveness of 3 methods of anchorage reinforcement for maximum anchorage in adolescents: a 3-arm multicenter randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2014;146(1):10-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.03.020.
[24] Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. European journal of orthodontics. 2014;36(3):275-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt046.
[25] Victor D, Prabhakar R, Karthikeyan MK, Saravanan R, Vanathi P, Vikram NR, Reddy PA, Sudeepthi M. Effectiveness of mini implants in three-dimensional control during retraction-a clinical study. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2014;8(2):227-232. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2013/7801.4066.
[26] Geron S, Shpack N, Kandos S, Davidovitch M, Vardimon AD. Anchorage loss—a multifactorial response. The Angle Orthodontist. 2003;73(6):730-737. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2003)073<0730:ALMR>2.0.CO;2.
[27] Dodeja T, Bhat SR, Talwar A. A comparative study to evaluate the effectiveness of lateral cephalogram and study cast to measure anteroposterior anchorage loss with preadjusted edgewise appliance. Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research. 2018;4(3):156-60. DOI: 10.18231/2455-6785.2018.0030.
[28] Dai FF, Xu TM, Shu G. Comparison of achieved and predicted tooth movement of maxillary first molars and central incisors: First premolar extraction treatment with Invisalign. The Angle Orthodontist. 2019;89(5):679-87. https://doi.org/10.2319/090418-646.1.
[29] Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2008;134(1):18-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.025.
[30] Park HS, Yoon DY, Park CS, Jeoung SH. Treatment effects and anchorage potential of sliding mechanics with titanium screws compared with the Tweed-Merrifield technique. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2008;133(4):593-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.02.041.
Published
2021-02-26
How to Cite
AMIRI, Ali et al. Evaluating the effect of the temporal intra-oral skeletal anchorage device (TISADs) for facilitating the anchorage reinforcement: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Journal of Contemporary Medical Sciences, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 1, p. 1-5, feb. 2021. ISSN 2413-0516. Available at: <http://www.jocms.org/index.php/jcms/article/view/932>. Date accessed: 21 jan. 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.22317/jcms.v7i1.932.