Kalha Anmol S
ITS Dental College, Hospital and Research Center, Greater Noida, NCR, India.
Evid Based Dent. 2014 Dec;15(4):110-1. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401061.
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, ISI Web of Science, LILACS. In addition, Pro-Quest Dissertation and Thesis database and Pro-Quest Science Journals. Hand searches were also carried out in American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics and Journal of Orthodontics.
Two reviewers independently selected studies, and randomised, quasi-randomised (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were considered. Studies with at least six months follow-up were included.
Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out independently by two reviewers. A narrative summary was presented as a meta-analysis could not be performed.
Seven studies were included (five RCTs, two CCTs). Three were considered to be at low risk of bias, three at moderate risk and one at high risk. There was some evidence to suggest that no difference exists to distinguish between the HRs and VFRs with respect to changes in intercanine and intermolar widths after orthodontic retention. There was insufficient evidence to support the use of VFRs over HRs in relation to occlusal contacts, cost effectiveness, patient satisfaction and survival time.
This systematic review suggests that further high-quality RCTs regarding the differences between HRs and VFRs during orthodontic retention are necessary to determine which retainer is the better selection for orthodontists.
Cochrane对照试验中心注册库（CENTRAL）、医学索引数据库（Medline）、荷兰医学文摘数据库（Embase）、科学引文索引扩展版（ISI Web of Science）、拉丁美洲和加勒比地区卫生科学数据库（LILACS）。此外，还有ProQuest学位论文数据库和ProQuest科学期刊数据库。还对手工检索了《美国正畸与牙颌面正畸杂志》《安格尔正畸医师》《欧洲正畸杂志》和《正畸杂志》。
两名评审员独立选择研究，纳入随机、半随机（随机对照试验）和对照临床试验。纳入随访至少6个月的研究。
两名评审员独立进行数据提取和偏倚风险评估。由于无法进行荟萃分析，因此进行了叙述性总结。
纳入7项研究（5项随机对照试验，2项对照临床试验）。3项研究被认为偏倚风险低，3项为中度风险，1项为高风险。有证据表明，在正畸保持后犬齿间和磨牙间宽度变化方面，传统保持器（HRs）和真空成型保持器（VFRs）之间没有差异。在咬合接触、成本效益、患者满意度和生存时间方面，没有足够证据支持使用真空成型保持器优于传统保持器。
本系统评价表明，有必要进行进一步高质量的随机对照试验，以确定在正畸保持期间传统保持器和真空成型保持器之间的差异，从而确定哪种保持器对正畸医生来说是更好的选择。
