Ng Julia, Major Paul W, Heo Giseon, Flores-Mir Carlos
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Aug;128(2):212-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.025.
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to quantify the amount of true incisor intrusion attained during orthodontic treatment.
Electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, all EBM reviews [Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ASP Journal Club, DARE, and CCTR], Embase, Web of Science, and Lilacs) were searched with the help of a senior health sciences librarian. The goal was to identify clinical trials that assessed true incisor intrusion through cephalometric analysis and factored out craniofacial growth when required. From the selected abstracts, original articles were retrieved, and their references were hand searched for missing articles.
Twenty-eight articles met the initial inclusion criteria, but 24 were rejected because they did not quantify true incisor intrusion or factor out normal growth impact when required. The remaining 4 articles showed that true incisor intrusion is attainable (0.26 to 1.88 mm for the maxillary incisors and -0.19 to 2.84 mm for the mandibular incisors) but with large variability depending on the appliance used. A meta-analysis with results from the 2 articles that used the segmental technique was completed. The combined mean estimates of intrusion and 95% CI were 1.46 mm (1.05-1.86 mm) for the maxillary incisors and 1.90 mm (1.22-2.57 mm) for the mandibular incisors.
True incisor intrusion is achievable in both arches, but the clinical significance of the magnitude of true intrusion as the sole treatment option is questionable for patients with severe deepbite. In nongrowing patients, the segmented arch technique can produce 1.5 mm of incisor intrusion in the maxillary arch and 1.9 mm in the mandibular arch.
本荟萃分析的目的是量化正畸治疗期间真正实现的切牙内收量。
在一位资深健康科学图书馆员的帮助下,检索了电子数据库(PubMed、Medline、Medline正在处理及其他未编入索引的引文、所有循证医学综述[Cochrane系统评价数据库、ASP期刊俱乐部、DARE和CCTR]、Embase、科学网和Lilacs)。目标是识别通过头影测量分析评估真正切牙内收且在需要时排除颅面生长因素的临床试验。从选定的摘要中检索原始文章,并手动搜索其参考文献以查找遗漏文章。
28篇文章符合初始纳入标准,但24篇被排除,因为它们未量化真正的切牙内收或在需要时未排除正常生长的影响。其余4篇文章表明可以实现真正的切牙内收(上颌切牙为0.26至1.88毫米,下颌切牙为-0.19至2.84毫米),但根据所使用的矫治器不同,差异很大。对使用节段技术的2篇文章的结果进行了荟萃分析。上颌切牙内收的合并平均估计值及95%置信区间为1.46毫米(1.05 - 1.86毫米),下颌切牙为1.90毫米(1.22 - 2.57毫米)。
上下颌弓均可实现真正的切牙内收,但对于严重深覆合患者,将真正内收量作为唯一治疗选择的临床意义值得怀疑。在非生长型患者中,节段弓技术可使上颌弓切牙内收1.5毫米,下颌弓切牙内收1.9毫米。