Department of Orthodontics, West China College of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Angle Orthod. 2011 Sep;81(5):915-22. doi: 10.2319/101410-603.1. Epub 2011 Feb 7.
To compare the anchorage effects of the implants and the headgear for patients with anterior teeth retraction in terms of incisor retraction, anchorage loss, inclination of maxillary incisors, positional change of maxillary basal bone, and treatment duration.
An electronic search for relative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) prospective and retrospective controlled trials was done through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Medline, and CNKI, regardless of language of study. Study selection, methodological quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was performed when possible; otherwise descriptive assessment was done.
The search yielded 35 articles, of which eight met the inclusion criteria and were categorized into five groups according to types of intervention. For the midpalatal implant, the anchorage loss was much less than for the headgear group, with insignificant differences in terms of anterior teeth retraction, maxillary incisor inclination, positional change of basal bone, and treatment duration. For the mini-implant, greater anterior teeth retraction and less anchorage loss were demonstrated, with inconsistent results for the other measures. For the onplant, less anchorage loss was noted, with insignificant differences for the other measures.
The skeletal anchorage of the midpalatal implant, mini-implant, and onplant offer better alternatives to headgear, with less anchorage loss and more anterior teeth retraction. There were inconsistent results from the included studies in terms of maxillary incisor inclination, positional change of maxillary basal bone, and treatment duration. More qualified RCTs are required to provide clear recommendations.
比较种植体支抗与头帽对前牙内收患者的支抗效果，包括切牙内收、支抗丧失、上颌切牙倾斜度、上颌基骨位置变化和治疗时间。
通过 Cochrane 中央对照试验注册库（CENTRAL）、PubMed、Embase、Medline 和中国知网（CNKI）对相关随机对照试验（RCT）和前瞻性及回顾性对照试验进行电子检索，无论研究语言如何。由两名评审员独立进行研究选择、方法学质量评估和数据提取。当可能时进行荟萃分析，否则进行描述性评估。
搜索共得到 35 篇文章，其中 8 篇符合纳入标准，并根据干预类型分为五组。对于腭中种植体，支抗丧失明显少于头帽组，而在切牙内收、上颌切牙倾斜度、基骨位置变化和治疗时间方面差异无统计学意义。对于微型种植体，显示出更大的切牙内收和更少的支抗丧失，而其他测量值的结果不一致。对于种植体支抗，支抗丧失较少，而其他测量值差异无统计学意义。
腭中种植体、微型种植体和种植体支抗的骨骼支抗为头帽提供了更好的替代方法，具有更少的支抗丧失和更大的切牙内收。纳入研究在上颌切牙倾斜度、上颌基骨位置变化和治疗时间方面的结果不一致。需要更多高质量的 RCT 来提供明确的建议。
