Academic Unit of Oral Health, Dentistry & Society, University of Sheffield School of Clinical Dentistry, Sheffield, UK.
Orthodontic Department, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton, Derby, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Dec 30;12(12):CD012851. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012851.pub2.
A permanent upper (maxillary) canine tooth that grows into the roof of the mouth and frequently does not appear (erupt) is called a palatally displaced canine (PDC). The reported prevalence of PDC in the population varies between 1% and 3%. Management of the unerupted PDC can be lengthy, involving surgery to uncover the tooth and prolonged orthodontic (brace) treatment to straighten it; therefore, various procedures have been suggested to encourage a PDC to erupt without the need for surgical intervention.
To assess the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of any interceptive procedure to promote the eruption of a PDC compared to no treatment or other interceptive procedures in young people aged 9 to 14 years old.
An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 3 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) involving at least 80% of children aged between 9 and 14 years, who were diagnosed with an upper PDC and undergoing an intervention to enable the successful eruption of the unerupted PDC, which was compared with an untreated control group or another intervention.
Two review authors, independently and in duplicate, examined titles, keywords, abstracts, full articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 tool (RoB1). The primary outcome was summarised with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We reported an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis when data were available and a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis if not. We also undertook several sensitivity analyses. We used summary of findings tables to present the main findings and our assessment of the certainty of the evidence.
We included four studies, involving 199 randomised participants (164 analysed), 108 girls and 91 boys, 82 of whom were diagnosed with unilateral PDC and 117 with bilateral PDC. The participants were aged between 8 and 13 years at recruitment. The certainty of the evidence was very low and future research may change our conclusions. One study (randomised 67 participants, 89 teeth) found that extracting the primary canine may increase the proportion of PDCs that successfully erupt into the mouth at 12 months compared with no extraction (RR 2.87, 95% CI 0.90 to 9.23; 45 participants, 45 PDCs analysed; very low-certainty evidence), but the CI included the possibility of no difference; therefore the evidence was uncertain. There was no evidence that extraction of the primary canine reduced the number of young people with a PDC referred for surgery at 12 months (RR 0.61 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.28). Three studies (randomised 132 participants, 227 teeth) found no difference in the proportion of successfully erupted PDCs at 18 months with a double primary tooth extraction compared with extraction of a single primary canine (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.31; 119 participants analysed, 203 PDCs; mITT; very low-certainty evidence). Two of these studies found no difference in the proportions referred for surgical exposure between the single and the double primary extraction groups data at 48 months (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.45). There are some descriptive data suggesting that the more severe the displacement of the PDC towards the midline, the lower the proportion of successfully erupted PDCs with or without intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence that extraction of the primary canine in a young person aged between 9 and 14 years diagnosed with a PDC may increase the proportion of erupted PDCs, without surgical intervention, is very uncertain. There is no evidence that double extraction of primary teeth increases the proportion of erupted PDC compared with a single primary tooth extraction at 18 months or the proportion referred for surgery by 48 months. Because we have only low to very low certainty in these findings, future research is necessary to help us know for sure the best way to deal with upper permanent teeth that are not erupting as expected.
未萌出(即未长出)的上颌(上颌)尖牙生长到上颌顶部并经常不出现(萌出),称为腭侧移位尖牙(PDC)。PDC 的报告患病率在人群中为 1%至 3%。未萌出的 PDC 的管理可能需要很长时间,包括手术暴露牙齿和延长正畸(牙套)治疗以使其变直;因此,已经提出了各种程序来鼓励 PDC 萌出,而无需手术干预。
评估任何截骨术以促进 PDC 萌出的效果、安全性和成本效益,与年轻人(9 至 14 岁)不治疗或其他截骨术相比。
一名信息专家检索了四个文献数据库,截至 2021 年 2 月 3 日,并使用了其他搜索方法来确定已发表、未发表和正在进行的研究。
我们纳入了至少 80%的年龄在 9 至 14 岁之间的儿童参与的随机对照试验(RCT),这些儿童被诊断为上颌 PDC 并接受干预以成功萌出未萌出的 PDC,与未治疗的对照组或另一种干预措施进行比较。
两名综述作者独立地、重复地检查了标题、关键词、摘要、全文、提取的数据,并使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具 1(RoB1)评估了偏倚风险。主要结果是用风险比(RR)和 95%置信区间(CI)总结。当数据可用时,我们报告了意向治疗(ITT)分析,如果没有,则报告了修改后的意向治疗(mITT)分析。我们还进行了几次敏感性分析。我们使用总结发现表来呈现主要发现和我们对证据确定性的评估。
我们纳入了四项研究,涉及 199 名随机参与者(164 名分析),108 名女孩和 91 名男孩,其中 82 名被诊断为单侧 PDC,117 名被诊断为双侧 PDC。参与者在招募时的年龄在 8 至 13 岁之间。证据的确定性非常低,未来的研究可能会改变我们的结论。一项研究(随机分配 67 名参与者,89 颗牙齿)发现,与不拔除相比,拔除主要尖牙可能会增加 12 个月时 PDC 成功萌出的比例(RR 2.87,95%CI 0.90 至 9.23;45 名参与者,45 颗 PDC 分析;低确定性证据),但 CI 包括无差异的可能性;因此,证据是不确定的。没有证据表明拔除主要尖牙会减少 12 个月时需要手术的 PDC 人数(RR 0.61(95%CI 0.29 至 1.28)。三项研究(随机分配 132 名参与者,227 颗牙齿)发现,18 个月时,双尖牙拔除与单尖牙拔除相比,成功萌出的 PDC 比例没有差异(RR 0.68,95%CI 0.35 至 1.31;119 名参与者分析,203 颗 PDC;mITT;低确定性证据)。其中两项研究发现,48 个月时,单尖牙和双尖牙拔除组之间需要手术暴露的比例没有差异(RR 0.31,95%CI 0.06 至 1.45)。有一些描述性数据表明,PDC 向中线移位越严重,萌出的 PDC 比例越低,无论是否干预。
在 9 至 14 岁被诊断为 PDC 的年轻人中,拔除主要尖牙可能会增加无需手术干预即可萌出的 PDC 比例,但证据非常不确定。在 18 个月或 48 个月时,双尖牙拔除与单尖牙拔除相比,萌出的 PDC 比例或需要手术的比例没有增加。由于我们对这些发现的确定性只有低到非常低,因此有必要进行未来的研究,以帮助我们确切地了解处理未按预期萌出的上颌恒牙的最佳方法。