Feldmann Ingalill, Bondemark L
Orthodontic Clinic, Public Dental Health Service and Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/County Council of Gävleborg, Sweden.
Angle Orthod. 2006 May;76(3):493-501. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0493:OA]2.0.CO;2.
The aim of this systematic review was to examine, in an evidence-based way, what kind of orthodontic anchorage systems/applications are evaluated and their effectiveness. A literature survey from the Pub Med and Cochrane databases covering the period from January 1966 to December 2004 was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCT), prospective and retrospective controlled studies, and clinical trials comparing at least two anchorage situations were included. Two reviewers selected and extracted the data independently and also assessed the quality of the retrieved studies. The search strategy resulted in 494 articles, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria. Two main anchorage situations were identified: anchorage of molars during space closure after premolar extractions and anchorage loss in the incisor or premolar region (or both) during molar distalization. Because of contradictory results and the vast heterogeneity in study methods, the scientific evidence was too weak to evaluate anchorage efficiency during space closure. Intraoral molar distalization leads to anchorage loss in various amounts depending on the choice of distalization unit. Most of the studies had serious problems with small sample size, confounding factors, lack of method error analysis, and no blinding in measurements. To obtain reliable scientific evidence, controlled RCT's with sufficient sample sizes are needed to determine which anchorage system is the most effective in the respective anchorage situation. Further studies should also consider patient acceptance and cost analysis as well as implants as anchorage.
本系统评价的目的是以循证方式研究评估了哪些正畸支抗系统/应用及其有效性。对PubMed和Cochrane数据库进行了文献检索,涵盖1966年1月至2004年12月期间。纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)、前瞻性和回顾性对照研究以及比较至少两种支抗情况的临床试验。两名评价者独立选择和提取数据,并评估检索到的研究的质量。检索策略共得到494篇文章,其中14篇符合纳入标准。确定了两种主要的支抗情况:拔除前磨牙后间隙关闭过程中磨牙的支抗以及磨牙远移过程中切牙或前磨牙区域(或两者)的支抗丧失。由于结果相互矛盾且研究方法存在巨大异质性,科学证据太薄弱,无法评估间隙关闭过程中的支抗效率。根据远移装置的选择,口内磨牙远移会导致不同程度的支抗丧失。大多数研究在样本量小、混杂因素、缺乏方法误差分析以及测量未采用盲法方面存在严重问题。为了获得可靠的科学证据,需要有足够样本量的对照RCT来确定哪种支抗系统在各自的支抗情况下最有效。进一步的研究还应考虑患者的接受程度和成本分析以及将种植体作为支抗。