Bock Niko C, von Bremen Julia, Ruf Sabine
Department of Orthodontics, University of Giessen, Germany
Department of Orthodontics, University of Giessen, Germany.
Eur J Orthod. 2016 Apr;38(2):129-39. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv009. Epub 2015 Mar 28.
To systematically search for scientific evidence concerning the stability of treatment (Tx) results achieved by means of Class II fixed functional appliance therapy and to assess possible differences between appliances.
An electronic search of databases and orthodontic journals was carried out (until December 2013), with supplemental hand searching. In addition to the names of all identified appliances, the term fixed functional was used in combination with each of the following search terms: long-term, post-Tx, relapse, retention, stability.
To be included in the review, the articles had to contain clear data on: Class II Tx with a fixed functional appliance (>5 patients), post-Tx period ≥ 1 year, assessment of ANB angle, Wits appraisal, molar relationship, soft-tissue profile convexity excluding the nose, overjet and/or overbite.
The literature search revealed 20 scientific investigations which corresponded to only two of the 76 identified appliances (Herbst and Twin Force Bite Corrector). As only one publication was found for the Twin Force Bite Corrector, a meta-analysis could only be performed for Herbst Tx. The data were extracted, pooled and weighted according to the number of patients in each study.
The mean values for post-Tx relapse (percentages relative to the Tx changes) were: ANB angle 0.2 degrees (12.4 per cent), Wits appraisal 0.5mm (19.5 per cent), sagittal molar relationship 1.2mm/0.1 cusp widths (21.8 per cent /6.5 per cent); soft-tissue profile convexity excluding nose less than 0.1 degrees (1.0 per cent), overjet 1.8mm (26.2 per cent), overbite Class II:1 1.4mm (44.7 per cent), overbite Class II:2 1.0mm (22.2 per cent).
The scientific evidence concerning the stability of Tx results is inexistent for most fixed functional appliances for Class II correction except for Herbst appliance Tx. Even if the evidence level of most included studies is rather low, good dentoskeletal stability without clinically relevant changes was found for most variables.
系统检索关于Ⅱ类固定功能矫治器治疗效果稳定性的科学证据,并评估不同矫治器之间可能存在的差异。
对数据库和正畸学杂志进行电子检索(截至2013年12月),并辅以手工检索。除了所有已识别矫治器的名称外,“固定功能”一词还与以下每个检索词组合使用:长期、治疗后、复发、保持、稳定性。
纳入综述的文章必须包含以下明确数据:使用固定功能矫治器进行Ⅱ类治疗(>5例患者)、治疗后时间≥1年、ANB角评估、Wits值评估、磨牙关系、不包括鼻子的软组织侧貌凸度、覆盖和/或覆合。
文献检索发现20项科学研究,仅对应76种已识别矫治器中的两种(Herbst矫治器和双力咬矫正器)。由于双力咬矫正器仅找到一篇文献,因此只能对Herbst矫治器治疗进行荟萃分析。根据每项研究中的患者数量对数据进行提取、合并和加权。
治疗后复发的平均值(相对于治疗变化的百分比)为:ANB角0.2度(12.4%)、Wits值0.5毫米(19.5%)、矢状向磨牙关系1.2毫米/0.1牙尖宽度(21.8%/6.5%);不包括鼻子的软组织侧貌凸度小于0.1度(1.0%)、覆盖1.8毫米(26.2%)、覆合Ⅱ类1型1.4毫米(44.7%)、覆合Ⅱ类2型1.0毫米(22.2%)。
除Herbst矫治器治疗外,大多数用于Ⅱ类矫治的固定功能矫治器缺乏关于治疗效果稳定性的科学证据。即使大多数纳入研究的证据水平较低,但大多数变量在临床上未出现相关变化的情况下仍具有良好的牙颌面稳定性。