Periodontal results of different therapeutic approaches (open vs. closed technique) and timing evaluation (< 2 year vs. > 2 year) of palatal impacted canines: a systematic review.
Palatal impacted canine
Periodontal results
Surgical approach
Therapeutic methods
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 11 2021
10 11 2021
Historique:
received:
11
10
2021
accepted:
28
10
2021
entrez:
11
11
2021
pubmed:
12
11
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This review evaluates, as a primary outcome, which surgical technique (open vs. closed) and which type of material used for the auxiliaries (elastic vs. metallic) were preferable in terms of periodontal results during the treatment of palatal-impacted canines. The timing of the evaluation of the results was also assessed as a secondary outcome. An electronic search of the literature up to March 2021 was performed on Pubmed, MEDLINE (via Pubmed), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Reviews and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (RCTs) (CENTRAL). The risk of bias evaluation was performed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs and the ACROBAT NRSI tool of Cochrane for non-RCTs. 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. Only one RCT was assessed as having a low risk of bias and all the non-RCTs were assessed as having a serious risk of bias. This review revealed better periodontal results for the closed technique and metallic auxiliaries. In addition, it revealed that the timing of the evaluation of the results affects the periodontal results with better results obtained 2 years after the end of treatment. In the treatment of a palatal-impacted canine, the closed technique and metallic auxiliaries should be preferred in terms of better periodontal results. The timing of the evaluation of the results affects the periodontal results.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This review evaluates, as a primary outcome, which surgical technique (open vs. closed) and which type of material used for the auxiliaries (elastic vs. metallic) were preferable in terms of periodontal results during the treatment of palatal-impacted canines. The timing of the evaluation of the results was also assessed as a secondary outcome.
METHODS
An electronic search of the literature up to March 2021 was performed on Pubmed, MEDLINE (via Pubmed), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Reviews and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (RCTs) (CENTRAL). The risk of bias evaluation was performed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs and the ACROBAT NRSI tool of Cochrane for non-RCTs.
RESULTS
11 articles met the inclusion criteria. Only one RCT was assessed as having a low risk of bias and all the non-RCTs were assessed as having a serious risk of bias. This review revealed better periodontal results for the closed technique and metallic auxiliaries. In addition, it revealed that the timing of the evaluation of the results affects the periodontal results with better results obtained 2 years after the end of treatment.
CONCLUSION
In the treatment of a palatal-impacted canine, the closed technique and metallic auxiliaries should be preferred in terms of better periodontal results. The timing of the evaluation of the results affects the periodontal results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34758795
doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01937-x
pii: 10.1186/s12903-021-01937-x
pmc: PMC8579516
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
574Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Aug;144(2):176-84
pubmed: 23910198
J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2012 Jan;16(1):42-9
pubmed: 22196426
Eur J Orthod. 2013 Dec;35(6):803-10
pubmed: 23349422
Eur J Orthod. 2013 Jun;35(3):323-8
pubmed: 22531665
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013 Jul 01;18(4):e597-602
pubmed: 23722128
Adv Med Sci. 2006;51 Suppl 1:204-9
pubmed: 17458091
Eur J Orthod. 2018 Jan 23;40(1):1-10
pubmed: 29106474
Angle Orthod. 1994;64(4):249-56
pubmed: 7978519
Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336-41
pubmed: 20171303
Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 2;11(1):2843
pubmed: 33531610
Angle Orthod. 1998 Apr;68(2):167-72
pubmed: 9564427
Eur J Orthod. 2018 Jan 23;40(1):11-22
pubmed: 28486586
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992 Feb;101(2):159-71
pubmed: 1739070
Angle Orthod. 2008 Mar;78(2):275-80
pubmed: 18251594
Angle Orthod. 2014 Jan;84(1):18-23
pubmed: 23841541
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 21;8:CD006966
pubmed: 28828758
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1961 Oct;14:1165-9
pubmed: 13883048
Angle Orthod. 2013 Jan;83(1):22-8
pubmed: 22639824
Angle Orthod. 2005 Mar;75(2):231-6
pubmed: 15825788
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994 Jan;105(1):61-72
pubmed: 8291494
World J Orthod. 2009 Winter;10(4):295-300
pubmed: 20072745
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Sep;106(3):339-42
pubmed: 18547839
Am J Orthod. 1983 Aug;84(2):125-32
pubmed: 6576636
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
J Investig Clin Dent. 2015 Feb;6(1):1-7
pubmed: 24357555
Acta Odontol Scand. 1976;34(1):53-7
pubmed: 1066949
J Oral Sci. 2018 Dec 27;60(4):552-556
pubmed: 29984786
Angle Orthod. 2006 Jan;76(1):43-51
pubmed: 16448268
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Oct;140(4):e193-8
pubmed: 21967957
Oral Implantol (Rome). 2017 Sep 27;10(2):162-171
pubmed: 29876041