Alfailany Doa'a Tahseen, Hajeer Mohammad Y, Burhan Ahmad S, Mahaini Luai, Darwich Khaldoun, Aljabban Ossama
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus University, Damascus, SYR.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus University, Damascus, SYR.
Cureus. 2022 May 27;14(5):e25381. doi: 10.7759/cureus.25381. eCollection 2022 May.
The objectives of this review were to evaluate the currently available evidence regarding the effectiveness of surgical versus non-surgical acceleration methods and the side effects associated with these methods. Nine databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science™, Google™ Scholar, Trip, OpenGrey, and PQDT OPEN from pro-Quest. ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP) were screened to explore ongoing studies and unpublished literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of patients who received surgical interventions (invasive or minimally invasive techniques) in conjunction with traditional fixed appliances and who were compared to the non-surgical interventions, were included. The Cochrane tool for risk of bias (RoB.2) was used for evaluating RCTs, whereas the ROBINS-I tool was used for the CCTs. This systematic review included four RCTs and two CCTs (154 patients). The surgical and non-surgical interventions were found to have the same effect on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) accelerating in four trials. In contrast, the surgical interventions were superior in the other two studies. High heterogeneity among the included studies prevented conducting the quantitative synthesis of the findings. The reported side effects related to the surgical and non-surgical interventions were similar. A "very low" to "low" evidence indicates that the effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical interventions in the acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement is similar, with no differences in the associated side effects. More high-quality clinical trials to compare the acceleration effectiveness between both modalities in different types of malocclusion is required.
本综述的目的是评估目前关于手术加速方法与非手术加速方法的有效性以及这些方法相关副作用的现有证据。检索了九个数据库：Cochrane对照试验中央注册库（CENTRAL）、EMBASE、Scopus、PubMed、科学网™、谷歌™学术、Trip、OpenGrey以及来自ProQuest的PQDT OPEN。对ClinicalTrials.gov和国际临床试验注册平台搜索门户（ICTRP）进行了筛选，以探索正在进行的研究和未发表的文献。纳入了随机对照试验（RCT）以及接受手术干预（侵入性或微创技术）并结合传统固定矫治器的患者的对照临床试验（CCT），并与非手术干预进行比较。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具（RoB.2）评估RCT，而使用ROBINS - I工具评估CCT。该系统评价纳入了四项RCT和两项CCT（154例患者）。在四项试验中发现手术和非手术干预对正畸牙齿移动（OTM）加速具有相同效果。相比之下，在另外两项研究中手术干预更具优势。纳入研究之间的高度异质性妨碍了对研究结果进行定量综合分析。报告的与手术和非手术干预相关的副作用相似。“非常低”到“低”的证据表明，手术和非手术干预在加速正畸牙齿移动方面的有效性相似，相关副作用无差异。需要更多高质量的临床试验来比较两种方式在不同类型错牙合畸形中的加速效果。
