Iliadi Anna, Kloukos Dimitrios, Gkantidis Nikolaos, Katsaros Christos, Pandis Nikolaos
Department of Orthodontics, University of Athens, 2 Thivon Str, 11527 Athens, Greece.
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland.
J Dent. 2015 Aug;43(8):876-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.002. Epub 2015 May 13.
To evaluate the risk of failure of fixed orthodontic retention protocols.
Screening for inclusion eligibility, quality assessment of studies and data extraction was performed independently by two authors.
The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched with no restrictions on publication date or language using detailed strategies. The main outcome assessed was bond failure.
Twenty-seven studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Randomised controlled trials and prospective studies were evaluated according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Retrospective studies were graded employing the predetermined criteria of Bondemark.
Nine randomised controlled trials, four of which were of low quality, were identified. Six studies had a prospective design and all were of low quality. Twelve studies were retrospective. The quality of trial reporting was poor in general. Four studies assessing glass-fibre retainers, three RCTs and one prospective, reported bond failures from 11 to 71%, whereas twenty studies evaluating multistranded retainers – nine RCTs, two prospective and nine retrospective – reported failures ranging from 12 to 50%. One comparison was performed, multistranded wires vs. polyehtylene woven ribbon (RR: 1.74; 95% CI: 0.45, 6.73; p=0.42).
The quality of the available evidence is low. No conclusive evidence was found in order to guide orthodontists in the selection of the best protocol.
Although fixed orthodontic retainers have been used for years in clinical practice, the selection of the best treatment protocol still remains a subjective issue. The available studies, and their synthesis, cannot provide reliable evidence in this field.
评估固定正畸保持方案失败的风险。
两名作者独立进行纳入资格筛选、研究质量评估和数据提取。
使用详细检索策略对电子数据库MEDLINE、EMBASE和CENTRAL进行检索,对出版日期和语言无限制。评估的主要结局是粘结失败。
27项研究符合纳入标准。根据Cochrane偏倚风险工具对随机对照试验和前瞻性研究进行评估。采用Bondemark预先确定的标准对回顾性研究进行分级。
确定了9项随机对照试验,其中4项质量较低。6项研究为前瞻性设计,均质量较低。12项研究为回顾性研究。总体而言,试验报告质量较差。4项评估玻璃纤维保持器的研究,3项随机对照试验和1项前瞻性研究报告粘结失败率为11%至71%,而20项评估多股保持器的研究——9项随机对照试验、2项前瞻性研究和9项回顾性研究——报告失败率为12%至50%。进行了一项比较,多股钢丝与聚乙烯编织带(相对危险度:1.74;95%置信区间:0.45,6.73;p = 0.42)。
现有证据质量较低。未找到确凿证据以指导正畸医生选择最佳方案。
尽管固定正畸保持器在临床实践中已使用多年,但最佳治疗方案的选择仍然是一个主观问题。现有研究及其综合分析无法在该领域提供可靠证据。