Comparison of external apical root resorption with clear aligners and pre-adjusted edgewise appliances in non-extraction cases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the amount of external apical root resorption (EARR) observed during the orthodontic treatment with pre-adjusted edgewise appliance (PEA) or clear aligner therapy (CAT) and with 2D or 3D radiographic methods of measuring the root resorption.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA

A search of PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Web of Science, Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov registry, and the ISRCTN Registry was performed. Studies that have evaluated the amount of root resorption in non-extraction cases using CAT or PEA were selected for the systematic review. A meta-analysis was performed for the amount of root resorption of permanent maxillary incisors using PEA or CAT treatment modalities by either 2D or cone-beam computed tomography radiographic examination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Database research, elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction, and risk of bias were performed by authors independently and in duplication. A random-effect meta-analysis followed by subgroup comparisons were performed to evaluate EARR.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies (4 were prospective and 12 were retrospective) were identified for inclusion in the systematic review. The mean root resorption for the permanent maxillary incisors was in the range from 0.25 to 1.13 mm (overall: 0.49 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.75 mm). The mean root resorption difference between CAT and PEA was statistically significant (P < 0.05) for 12 but not for 21, 11, or 22.

LIMITATIONS

One of the drawbacks is a lack of good quality prospective studies, specifically randomized clinical trials in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Neither PEA or CAT technique leads to clinically significant root resorption (1 mm) of the maxillary incisors. The amount of EARR of maxillary incisors is not significant in comparing two treatment modalities (PEA and CAT), except for 12, where the PEA group has significantly more EARR when compared to CAT.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 and was registered at PROSPERO database (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018113051). This systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.