Long-term effectiveness of non-surgical open-bite treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal
Progress in orthodontics
ISSN: 2196-1042
Titre abrégé: Prog Orthod
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 100936353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2023
01 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
20
01
2023
accepted:
31
03
2023
medline:
2
6
2023
pubmed:
1
6
2023
entrez:
31
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The etiology of open bite is complex, involving various genetic or environmental factors. Several treatment alternatives have been suggested for the correction of open bite, yet their long-term effectiveness remains controversial. To assess the long-term effectiveness of open-bite treatment in treated with non-surgical approaches versus untreated patients, through lateral cephalometric radiographs. Unrestricted search of 16 electronic databases and manual searches up to November 2022. Randomized or non-randomized controlled trials reporting on the long-term effects of open-bite treatment through angular lateral cephalometric variables. Only angular variables on lateral cephalometric radiographs were considered as primary outcomes. For each outcome, the mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model to consider existing heterogeneity. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (R.o.B. 2.0) and the risk-of-bias tool for non-randomized studies for interventions (ROBINS-I) were utilized for the randomized and non-randomized trials, respectively. From the initially identified 26,527 hits, only 6 studies (1 randomized and 5 retrospective controlled trials) were finally included in this systematic review reporting on 244 open-bite individuals (134 patients and 110 untreated controls), while five of them were included in the meta-analyses, assessing either the interval ranging from treatment start to post-retention (T3-T1) or from end of treatment to post-retention period (T3-T2). Regarding the vertical plane, for the T3-T2 interval, no significant differences were found for the assessed skeletal measurements, indicating a relative stability of the treatment results. Similarly, with regard to the T3-T1 interval, no significant differences could be identified for the examined skeletal variables, implying that the produced effects are rather minimal and that the correction of the open bite was performed mainly through dentoalveolar rather than skeletal changes. Further, no significant changes could be identified regarding the inclination of the upper and lower incisors. Only the nasolabial angle was significantly reduced in the treated patients in the long term. According to existing evidence, the influence of non-surgical treatment of open bite on the skeletal tissues and the inclination of the incisors is rather minimal in the long term, while only the nasolabial angle was significantly reduced.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The etiology of open bite is complex, involving various genetic or environmental factors. Several treatment alternatives have been suggested for the correction of open bite, yet their long-term effectiveness remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To assess the long-term effectiveness of open-bite treatment in treated with non-surgical approaches versus untreated patients, through lateral cephalometric radiographs.
SEARCH METHODS
METHODS
Unrestricted search of 16 electronic databases and manual searches up to November 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
METHODS
Randomized or non-randomized controlled trials reporting on the long-term effects of open-bite treatment through angular lateral cephalometric variables.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
METHODS
Only angular variables on lateral cephalometric radiographs were considered as primary outcomes. For each outcome, the mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model to consider existing heterogeneity. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (R.o.B. 2.0) and the risk-of-bias tool for non-randomized studies for interventions (ROBINS-I) were utilized for the randomized and non-randomized trials, respectively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
From the initially identified 26,527 hits, only 6 studies (1 randomized and 5 retrospective controlled trials) were finally included in this systematic review reporting on 244 open-bite individuals (134 patients and 110 untreated controls), while five of them were included in the meta-analyses, assessing either the interval ranging from treatment start to post-retention (T3-T1) or from end of treatment to post-retention period (T3-T2). Regarding the vertical plane, for the T3-T2 interval, no significant differences were found for the assessed skeletal measurements, indicating a relative stability of the treatment results. Similarly, with regard to the T3-T1 interval, no significant differences could be identified for the examined skeletal variables, implying that the produced effects are rather minimal and that the correction of the open bite was performed mainly through dentoalveolar rather than skeletal changes. Further, no significant changes could be identified regarding the inclination of the upper and lower incisors. Only the nasolabial angle was significantly reduced in the treated patients in the long term.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
According to existing evidence, the influence of non-surgical treatment of open bite on the skeletal tissues and the inclination of the incisors is rather minimal in the long term, while only the nasolabial angle was significantly reduced.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37258750
doi: 10.1186/s40510-023-00467-2
pii: 10.1186/s40510-023-00467-2
pmc: PMC10232685
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
J Orofac Orthop. 2016 Jul;77(4):281-6
pubmed: 27098640
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jun;129(6):734-9
pubmed: 16769491
Am J Orthod. 1983 Jul;84(1):54-68
pubmed: 6575617
Biometrics. 2000 Jun;56(2):455-63
pubmed: 10877304
BMJ. 2006 Oct 14;333(7572):804-6
pubmed: 17038740
Prog Orthod. 2020 Sep 5;21(1):35
pubmed: 32888097
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Oct;142(4):487-93
pubmed: 22999672
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Eur J Orthod. 1992 Dec;14(6):489-99
pubmed: 1486935
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997 Aug;112(2):171-8
pubmed: 9267229
Eur J Orthod. 2006 Dec;28(6):610-7
pubmed: 17101701
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jun;129(6):768-74
pubmed: 16769495
Eur J Orthod. 2016 Jun;38(3):237-50
pubmed: 26136439
Angle Orthod. 2007 Jul;77(4):632-9
pubmed: 17605497
Turk J Orthod. 2017 Mar;30(1):21-27
pubmed: 30112488
Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2007 Aug;19(3):321-38, v
pubmed: 18088888
Emerg Med J. 2020 Jun;37(6):387
pubmed: 32253195
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Feb;139(2):154-69
pubmed: 21300243
Angle Orthod. 2007 Jul;77(4):640-5
pubmed: 17605486
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2008 Feb;11(1):32-42
pubmed: 18199078
Biometrics. 1994 Dec;50(4):1088-101
pubmed: 7786990
Prog Orthod. 2016 Dec;17(1):28
pubmed: 27615261
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):380-2
pubmed: 21185693
Angle Orthod. 2018 Sep;88(5):538-544
pubmed: 29683335
Angle Orthod. 2008 Jul;78(4):647-54
pubmed: 18302463
Eur J Orthod. 2017 Feb;39(1):31-42
pubmed: 26846264
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;61(10):991-6
pubmed: 18538991
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Oct;128(4):517-9
pubmed: 16214636
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Jul;150(1):78-88
pubmed: 27364209
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 May;143(5):695-703
pubmed: 23631971
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
pubmed: 9310563
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Nov;146(5):594-602
pubmed: 25439210
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2018 May;21(2):104-111
pubmed: 29537699
Angle Orthod. 2018 Sep;88(5):523-529
pubmed: 29683334
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34
pubmed: 19631507
Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 2002;17(4):243-53
pubmed: 12592995
PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001419
pubmed: 23585737
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Nov;132(5):595-8
pubmed: 18005832
Br Dent J. 2015 Feb 16;218(3):167-75
pubmed: 25686434
Oral Health. 1990 Jan;80(1):27-31
pubmed: 2388763
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Mar;129(3):418-23
pubmed: 16527639