Effects of micro-osteoperforations performed with Propel system on tooth movement, pain/quality of life, anchorage loss, and root resorption: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Canine retraction
MOPs
Micro-osteoperforation
Orthodontics
Tooth movement techniques
Journal
Progress in orthodontics
ISSN: 2196-1042
Titre abrégé: Prog Orthod
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 100936353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Jul 2020
27 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
03
04
2020
accepted:
18
06
2020
entrez:
28
7
2020
pubmed:
28
7
2020
medline:
29
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) performed with Propel and other mini-screws on the rate of tooth movement, pain/discomfort, periodontal health, anchorage loss, and root resorption in patients undergoing orthodontic retraction compared to a control group. PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, LILACS, Google Scholar, Scopus, and OpenGrey were searched without restriction. A manual search was also carried out. Only randomized clinical trials (RCT) were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using RoB 2.0 and the certainty of evidence through the GRADE tool. Among the twelve RCTs reviewed, five used the Propel system. Overall, the RoB was classified as low (4), moderate (5), and high (3). Two RCTs with moderate and one with a low RoB using the Propel system reported mild increases on rate of tooth movement associated with MOPs. One RCT with a moderate and another with high RoB did not find a significant effect of Propel on orthodontic movement. Regarding tooth movement, a subgroup meta-analysis found no differences between control and Propel movement (95% CI = - 0.01 to 0.75) or other mini-screws (- 0.02 to 0.31) related to rate of tooth movement per month. There was no effect of MOPs on root resorption, periodontal health, anchorage loss, and a mild effect on pain and oral health related to quality of life regardless of mini-screw type. The level of certainty was graded as low for the rate of tooth movement and pain/discomfort, as moderate for anchorage loss, and high for root resorption. A low certainty of evidence supports that MOPs performed with Propel seem to have no significant effect on the rate of tooth movement. Moreover, this intervention does not seem to cause an increase in root resorption, periodontal heath, pain/discomfort, or anchorage loss. Thus, the Propel system does not appear to produce different results from those observed for other mini-screws.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) performed with Propel and other mini-screws on the rate of tooth movement, pain/discomfort, periodontal health, anchorage loss, and root resorption in patients undergoing orthodontic retraction compared to a control group.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, LILACS, Google Scholar, Scopus, and OpenGrey were searched without restriction. A manual search was also carried out. Only randomized clinical trials (RCT) were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using RoB 2.0 and the certainty of evidence through the GRADE tool.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among the twelve RCTs reviewed, five used the Propel system. Overall, the RoB was classified as low (4), moderate (5), and high (3). Two RCTs with moderate and one with a low RoB using the Propel system reported mild increases on rate of tooth movement associated with MOPs. One RCT with a moderate and another with high RoB did not find a significant effect of Propel on orthodontic movement. Regarding tooth movement, a subgroup meta-analysis found no differences between control and Propel movement (95% CI = - 0.01 to 0.75) or other mini-screws (- 0.02 to 0.31) related to rate of tooth movement per month. There was no effect of MOPs on root resorption, periodontal health, anchorage loss, and a mild effect on pain and oral health related to quality of life regardless of mini-screw type. The level of certainty was graded as low for the rate of tooth movement and pain/discomfort, as moderate for anchorage loss, and high for root resorption.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A low certainty of evidence supports that MOPs performed with Propel seem to have no significant effect on the rate of tooth movement. Moreover, this intervention does not seem to cause an increase in root resorption, periodontal heath, pain/discomfort, or anchorage loss. Thus, the Propel system does not appear to produce different results from those observed for other mini-screws.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32715352
doi: 10.1186/s40510-020-00326-4
pii: 10.1186/s40510-020-00326-4
pmc: PMC7383046
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
27Références
Saudi Dent J. 2020 Jan;32(1):15-20
pubmed: 31920274
Eur J Orthod. 2020 Apr 1;42(2):211-221
pubmed: 31215993
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019 Aug;22(3):213-221
pubmed: 31021044
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Mar;155(3):313-329
pubmed: 30826034
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
BMC Oral Health. 2018 Jun 27;18(1):116
pubmed: 29945577
J Dent Res. 2010 Oct;89(10):1135-41
pubmed: 20639508
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019 May;22(2):61-68
pubmed: 30884158
Aust Dent J. 2017 Mar;62 Suppl 1:63-70
pubmed: 28297096
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Angle Orthod. 2019 Mar;89(2):183-189
pubmed: 30372126
Prog Orthod. 2016 Dec;17(1):33
pubmed: 27696311
J Clin Exp Dent. 2018 Aug 1;10(8):e761-e767
pubmed: 30305873
Eur J Orthod. 2016 Aug;38(4):429-34
pubmed: 27266879
Angle Orthod. 2015 May;85(3):493-500
pubmed: 25157973
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2019 Oct 04;9(6):637-645
pubmed: 32039085
Prog Orthod. 2020 Mar 9;21(1):7
pubmed: 32147751
J Dent Res. 2019 Dec;98(13):1469-1479
pubmed: 31589824
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Apr;145(4 Suppl):S92-9
pubmed: 24680029
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Feb;139(2):252-9
pubmed: 21300255
Prog Orthod. 2013 Oct 29;14:42
pubmed: 24326040
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Jun;153(6):771-785
pubmed: 29853235
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Nov;144(5):639-48
pubmed: 24182579
J Orthod. 2018 Dec;45(4):225-233
pubmed: 30281397
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Mar;157(3):290-304
pubmed: 32115107
Prog Orthod. 2019 Jun 3;20(1):21
pubmed: 31155698