Starch-Jensen Thomas, Kjellerup Annette Dalgaard, Blæhr Tue Lindberg
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, AalborgDenmark.
J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2018 Sep 30;9(3):e1. doi: 10.5037/jomr.2018.9301. eCollection 2018 Jul-Sep.
The objective of the present systematic review was to assess the transverse skeletal and dental arch expansion and relapse after mandibular midline distraction osteogenesis with a bone-borne, tooth-borne or hybrid distraction appliance.
A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted. Human studies published in English until the 3 of July, 2018 were included.
Two comparative and seven non-comparative studies characterized by high risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Transverse mandibular widening was achieved with the different types of distraction appliance displaying a horizontal V-shaped opening with larger anterior transverse expansion declining progressively towards the posterior part of the mandible. Bone-borne and hybrid appliance facilitate more skeletal expansion compared with tooth-borne appliance, whereas comparable dental arch expansion was achieved with the different types of distraction appliance. Skeletal and dental arch relapse with the different type of appliance was limited and comparable. However, frequency of complications was higher with bone-borne appliance compared with tooth-borne or hybrid appliance.
Mandibular midline distraction osteogenesis with bone-borne, tooth-borne or hybrid distraction appliance is an effective treatment modality to correct severe transverse mandibular discrepancies, although the skeletal and dental arch expansion pattern was dissimilar with the different types of appliance. However, dissimilar evaluation methods, different outcome measures, various methodological confounding factors posed serious restrictions reviewing the literature in a quantitative systematic manner. Hence, well-designed long-term randomized controlled trials applying three-dimensional technology, patient-related outcome measures and an economic perspective are needed before definite conclusions can be provided.
本系统评价的目的是评估使用骨支持式、牙支持式或混合式牵张矫治器进行下颌中线牵张成骨术后横向骨骼和牙弓的扩展及复发情况。
进行了MEDLINE(PubMed)、Embase和Cochrane图书馆检索,并结合对相关期刊的手工检索。纳入截至2018年7月3日以英文发表的人体研究。
两项具有高偏倚风险的比较性研究和七项非比较性研究符合纳入标准。使用不同类型的牵张矫治器可实现下颌横向增宽,呈现水平V形开口,前部横向扩展较大,向下颌后部逐渐减小。与牙支持式矫治器相比,骨支持式和混合式矫治器促进更多的骨骼扩展,而不同类型的牵张矫治器实现的牙弓扩展相当。不同类型矫治器的骨骼和牙弓复发有限且相当。然而,与牙支持式或混合式矫治器相比,骨支持式矫治器的并发症发生率更高。
使用骨支持式、牙支持式或混合式牵张矫治器进行下颌中线牵张成骨术是纠正严重下颌横向差异的有效治疗方式,尽管不同类型的矫治器骨骼和牙弓扩展模式不同。然而,不同的评估方法、不同的结局指标、各种方法学混杂因素严重限制了以定量系统的方式回顾文献。因此,在得出明确结论之前,需要设计良好的长期随机对照试验,应用三维技术、患者相关结局指标和经济学视角。