Wagner Delphine, Lévy-Benichou Hélène, Lefebvre François, Bolender Yves
Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université de Strasbourg, 8 rue Sainte-Elisabeth, 67 000 Strasbourg, France, Pôle de Médecine et Chirurgie Bucco-dentaires, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, 1 place de l'hôpital, 67091 Strasbourg, France.
Pôle de Médecine et Chirurgie Bucco-dentaires, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, 1 place de l'hôpital, 67091 Strasbourg, France.
Orthod Fr. 2020 Dec 1;91(4):303-321. doi: 10.1684/orthodfr.2020.29.
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare self-ligating brackets (SLBs) considered as a whole to conventional brackets (CBs). An electronic search was performed in three databases (PubMed, MEDLINE via Web of Science, Cochrane Library) from their origin up to June 2017. Additional articles were hand searched from January 2006 to June 2017. This meta-analysis was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and split mouth design studies (SMDs). No distinction was made between active and passive SLBs. The following variables were investigated : treatment duration, number of visits, alignment rate, rate of space closure, perception of discomfort during the initial phase of treatment, pain experience during wire insertion or removal, bond failure rate, time to ligate in or to untie an archwire, periodontal indices, occlusal outcomes, transverse arch dimensional changes and root resorption. 25 RCTs and 9 SMDs were finally selected. It was more painful to insert or remove a 0.019× 0.025 SS archwire in/from SLBs. It was significantly quicker to insert or remove an archwire from SLBs. There was less bleeding on probing with SLBs 4 or 5 weeks after bonding. All other variables did not exhibit any significant difference between SLBs and CBs. Out of the 31 comparisons between self-ligating and conventional brackets, 9 only revealed statistically significant differences. This meta-analysis contradicts most of the promotional statements put forward by the distributors.
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是将整体自结扎托槽（SLB）与传统托槽（CB）进行比较。从建库至2017年6月，在三个数据库（PubMed、通过Web of Science检索的MEDLINE、Cochrane图书馆）中进行了电子检索。另外，对2006年1月至2017年6月期间的文章进行了手工检索。本荟萃分析仅限于随机对照试验（RCT）和分牙列设计研究（SMD）。未区分主动和被动自结扎托槽。研究了以下变量：治疗持续时间、就诊次数、排齐率、间隙关闭率、治疗初始阶段的不适感、弓丝插入或拆除时的疼痛体验、粘结失败率、结扎或松开弓丝的时间、牙周指数、咬合结果、牙弓横向尺寸变化和牙根吸收。最终纳入25项RCT和9项SMD。在自结扎托槽中插入或拆除0.019×0.025英寸不锈钢弓丝时更疼。从自结扎托槽中插入或拆除弓丝明显更快。粘结后4或5周，自结扎托槽探诊时出血较少。自结扎托槽和传统托槽之间的所有其他变量均未显示出任何显著差异。在自结扎托槽和传统托槽的31项比较中，只有9项显示出统计学上的显著差异。本荟萃分析与经销商提出的大多数宣传声明相矛盾。
