Orthodontic Intrusion Using Temporary Anchorage Devices Compared to Other Orthodontic Intrusion Methods: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE

To systemically review all clinical trials that evaluate the effectiveness of orthodontic intrusion using bone anchorage devices versus using other orthodontic techniques in adult patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All randomized, controlled clinical trials and prospective studies that compare the use of TADs in intrusion versus alternative devices from the year 2000 to 2019 were searched using various electronic databases. Databases used include Pubmed, Cochrane, Scopus, Lilacs, and ScienceDirect. Selection was initially made by reading the titles and abstracts of potential suitable studies. The final selection was made after reading the full retrieved articles. A methodological score developed by Lagravère was used to assess the quality of evidence. The selection process was illustrated using a PRISMA flow chart.

RESULTS

A total of 3942 articles were retrieved, from which only two randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. This presented a low to medium level of evidence to support the hypothesis that TADs are more effective than other orthodontic intrusion techniques for intruding upper incisors and improving upper incisor to lip relation while eliminating the adverse effect of compromising vertical posterior anchorage. Shorter treatment times and less root resorption were found in the TAD group.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to state that TADs can be used as orthodontic anchorage to effectively intrude the incisors without the need for patient cooperation. Future high quality prospective randomized clinical trials are required.