Regalado-Bazán Christian-Fabrizio, Espichan-Salazar Andrea-Carolina, Arriola-Guillén Luis-Ernesto
School of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú.
Ph.D. and Associate Professor of the Division of Orthodontics and Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú.
J Clin Exp Dent. 2024 May 1;16(5):e586-e594. doi: 10.4317/jced.61520. eCollection 2024 May.
Aligners are an alternative that are currently being widely used in orthodontic treatment, however, post-treatment relapse following aligner versus conventional treatment has not been compared. The objective of this study was to compare post-treatment relapse of orthodontic treatment with dental aligners versus conventional fixed orthodontics through a systematic review.
An exhaustive search was carried out in the MEDLINE (via PubMed), EBSCO, SCOPUS and EMBASE databases up to September 30, 2023. A total of 522 articles were found and after applying the selection criteria, the full texts of 24 articles were chosen for evaluation. At the end of the evaluation, only 3 studies were considered, two observational studies and one randomized clinical trial. The Newcastle Ottawa and Risk of bias (ROB-2) tools were used to assess the risk of bias.
Of the three studies, only one (evaluated three years post-orthodontic treatment) identified significant differences in the frequency of relapse following total, maxillary and mandibular anterior alignment using conventional orthodontics. The other two studies (one evaluated at six months and the other two years post-orthodontic treatment) did not show statistically significant differences (>0.05). In addition, the two latter studies reported slight relapse related to detachment of the fixed retainer.
The current evidence available indicates a lack of well-designed studies comparing post-treatment orthodontic relapse following the use of dental aligners versus conventional fixed orthodontic treatment, and the studies published to date have a high or moderate risk of bias. However, there are apparently no significant differences in frequency of relapse between the two types of treatment, suggesting similar stability results. Nonetheless, more well-designed studies are required to confirm this observation. Aligners, brackets, relapse, orthodontic.
矫治器是目前正畸治疗中广泛使用的一种替代方法，然而，矫治器治疗与传统治疗后的治疗后复发情况尚未进行比较。本研究的目的是通过系统评价比较使用牙齿矫治器与传统固定正畸治疗后的正畸治疗后复发情况。
截至2023年9月30日，在MEDLINE（通过PubMed）、EBSCO、SCOPUS和EMBASE数据库中进行了详尽的检索。共找到522篇文章，应用选择标准后，选择24篇文章的全文进行评估。评估结束时，仅考虑3项研究，两项观察性研究和一项随机临床试验。使用纽卡斯尔渥太华和偏倚风险（ROB-2）工具评估偏倚风险。
在这三项研究中，只有一项（在正畸治疗后三年进行评估）发现使用传统正畸方法进行全牙列、上颌和下颌前牙排齐后复发频率存在显著差异。另外两项研究（一项在正畸治疗后六个月评估，另一项在正畸治疗后两年评估）未显示出统计学显著差异（>0.05）。此外，后两项研究报告了与固定保持器脱落相关的轻微复发。
现有证据表明，缺乏设计良好的研究来比较使用牙齿矫治器与传统固定正畸治疗后的正畸治疗后复发情况, 并且迄今为止发表的研究存在高或中度偏倚风险。然而，两种治疗方法在复发频率上显然没有显著差异，表明稳定性结果相似。尽管如此，仍需要更多设计良好的研究来证实这一观察结果。矫治器、托槽、复发、正畸。
