nach oben

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Erschienen in:

13.07.2022 | Review Article

Soft tissue changes with skeletal anchorage in comparison to conventional anchorage protocols in the treatment of bimaxillary proclination patients treated with premolar extraction

A systematic review

verfasst von: Kumeran Mohan, Saritha Sivarajan, May Nak Lau, Siti Adibah Othman, Mona M. Salah Fayed

Erschienen in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Ausgabe 2/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

This review systematically evaluates the evidence related to comparisons between skeletal and conventional anchorage protocols in the treatment of bimaxillary proclination patients who underwent premolars extraction with respect to soft tissue profile changes, treatment duration and three-dimensional (3D) soft tissue changes.

Methods

Electronic database search and hand search with no language limitations were conducted in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov. The selection criteria were set to include studies with patients aged 13 years and above requiring extractions of upper and lower first premolars to treat bimaxillary proclination with high anchorage demand. Risk of bias assessment was undertaken with Cochrane’s Risk Of Bias tool 2.0 (ROB 2.0) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS‑I tool for nonrandomised prospective studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment. Results were summarised qualitatively; no meta-analysis was conducted.

Results

Two RCTs and two nonrandomised prospective studies were included. According to the GRADE approach, there is low to very low quality of evidence that treatment using mini-implant anchorage may significantly change nasolabial angle, upper and lower lip procumbence, and facial convexity angle compared to treatment with conventional anchorage. Similarly, very low quality evidence exists showing no differences in treatment duration between treatments with skeletal or conventional anchorage.

Conclusions

The overall existing evidence regarding the effect of anchorage protocols on soft tissue changes in patients with bimaxillary protrusion and premolar extraction treatment plans is of low quality. Trial registration number: PROSPERO CRD42020216684

Mitchell L (2013) An Introduction to Orthodontics, Fourth Ed edn. vol 35. Oxford University Press https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt018CrossRef

Keating PJ (1986) The treatment of bimaxillary protrusion. A cephalometric consideration of changes in the inter-incisal angle and soft tissue profile. Br J Orthod 13(4):209–220. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.13.4.209CrossRefPubMed

Lewis S (1943) Bimaxillary Protrusion. Angle Orthod 13(34):51–59

Cobourne M, DiBiase A (2016) Handbook of Orthodontics, 2nd edn. Elsevier

Bills DA, Handelman CS, Begole EA (2005) Bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: Traits and orthodontic correction. Angle Orthod 75(3):333–339. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219%282005%2975%5B333:BDPTAO%5D2.0.CO%5D2CrossRefPubMed

Carter NE, Slattery DA (1988) Bimaxillary proclination in patients of afro-caribbean origin. Br J Orthod 15(3):175–184. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.15.3.175CrossRefPubMed

Farrow AL, Zarrinnia K, Azizi K (1993) Bimaxillary protrusion in black Americans—an esthetic evaluation and the treatment considerations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 104(3):240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81725-1CrossRefPubMed

Sharma JN (2010) Skeletal and soft tissue point a and b changes following orthodontic treatment of nepalese Class I bimaxillary protrusive patients. Angle Orthod 80(1):91–96. https://doi.org/10.2319/010409-6.1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hosseinzadeh-Nik T, Eftekhari A, Shahroudi AS, Kharrazifard MJ (2016) Changes of the Mandible after Orthodontic Treatment with and without Extraction of Four Premolars. J Dent (Tehran) 13(3):199–206PubMed

10.

Leonardi R, Annunziata A, Licciardello V, Barbato E (2010) Soft tissue changes following the extraction of premolars in nongrowing patients with bimaxillary protrusion. Angle Orthod 80(1):211–216. https://doi.org/10.2319/010709-16.1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Holdaway RA (1983) A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod 84(1):1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(83)90144-6CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ricketts RM (1960) A foundation for cephalometric communication. Am J Orthod 46(5):330–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(60)90047-6CrossRef

13.

Burstone CJ (1967) Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 53(4):262–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(67)90022-XCrossRefPubMed

14.

Arnett GW, Bergman RT, Barbara S (1993) Facial keys to orthodontic planning. Part I diagnosis and treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 103(4):299–312CrossRefPubMed

15.

Arnett GW, Jelic JS, Kim J, Cummings DR (1999) Soft tissue cephalometric analysis diagnosis and treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70234-9CrossRefPubMed

16.

Arnett GW, Bergman RT (1993) Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning—part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 103(4):299–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(93)70010-LCrossRefPubMed

17.

Arnett GW, Gunson MJ (2004) Facial planning for orthodontists and oral surgeons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126(3):290–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.06.006CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kerns LL, Silveira AM, Kerns DC, Recennitter FJ (1997) Esthetic preference of the frontal and profile views of the same smile. J Esthet Restor Dent 9(2):76–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1997.tb00921.xCrossRef

19.

Almutairi TK, Albarakati SF, Aldrees AM (2015) Influence of bimaxillary protrusion on the perception of smile esthetics. Saudi Med J 36(1):87–93. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2015.1.9480CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Solem RC, Marasco R, Guiterrez-Pulido L, Nielsen I, Kim SH, Nelson G (2013) Three-dimensional soft-tissue and hard-tissue changes in the treatment of bimaxillary protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144(2):218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.03.018CrossRefPubMed

21.

Monga N, Kharbanda OP, Samrit V (2016) Quantitative and qualitative assessment of anchorage loss during en-masse retraction with indirectly loaded miniscrews in patients with bimaxillary protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 150(2):274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.02.014CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sandler J, Murray A, Thiruvenkatachari B, Gutierrez R, Speight P, O’Brien K (2014) Effectiveness of 3 methods of anchorage reinforcement for maximum anchorage in adolescents: A 3‑arm multicenter randomised clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 146(1):10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.03.020CrossRefPubMed

23.

Jambi S, Walsh T, Sandler J, Pe B, Rm S, Kd OB (2014) Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods (review) summary of findings for the main comparison. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005098.pub3.www.cochranelibrary.comCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S (2008) Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: A randomised controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134(1):18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.025CrossRefPubMed

25.

Liu YH, Ding WH, Liu J, Li Q (2009) Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion. J Oral Rehabil 36(9):687–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01976.xCrossRefPubMed

26.

Chopra SS, Mukherjee M, Mitra R, Kochar GD, Kadu A (2017) Comparative evaluation of anchorage reinforcement between orthodontic implants and conventional anchorage in orthodontic management of bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Med J Armed Forces India 73(2):159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.01.003CrossRefPubMed

27.

Khlef HN, Hajeer MY, Ajaj MA, Heshmeh O (2018) Review article evaluation of treatment outcomes of en masse retraction with temporary skeletal anchorage devices in comparison with two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with Dentoalveolar protrusion: a systematic review and Meta-ana. Contemp Clin Dent 9:513–523. https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccdCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Higgins JP (2016) ROBINS‑I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (eds) (2013) Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. GRADE Working Group

30.

Liu Y, Yang Z, Zhou J et al (2020) Comparison of Anchorage Efficiency of Orthodontic Mini-implant and Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Patients Requiring Maximum Orthodontic Anchorage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract 20(2):101401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2020.101401CrossRefPubMed

31.

Huang YP, Li WR (2015) Correlation between objective and subjective evaluation of profile in bimaxillary protrusion patients after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 85(4):690–698CrossRefPubMed

32.

Lew K (1989) Profile changes following orthodontic treatment of bimaxillary protrusion in adults with the begg appliance. Eur J Orthod 11(4):375–381. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a036009CrossRefPubMed

33.

Khlef HN, Hajeer MY, Ajaj MA, Heshmeh O (2019) En-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth in adult patients with maxillary or bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 20(1):113–127. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2485CrossRefPubMed

34.

Biller JA, Kim DW (2009) A contemporary assessment of facial aesthetic preferences. Arch Facial Plast Surg 11(2):91–97CrossRefPubMed

35.

Eggerstedt M, Rhee J, Urban MJ, Mangahas A, Smith RM, Revenaugh PC (2020) Beauty is in the eye of the follower: facial aesthetics in the age of social media. Am J Otolaryngol 41(6):102643CrossRefPubMed

36.

Ramos AL, Sakima MT, Pinto ADS, Bowman SJ (2005) Upper lip changes correlated to maxillary incisor retraction—A metallic implant study. Angle Orthod 75(4):499–505. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219%282005%2975%5B499:ULCCTM%5D2.0.CO%3B2CrossRefPubMed

37.

Oliver BM (1982) The influence of lip thickness and strain on upper lip response to incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 82(2):141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90492-4CrossRefPubMed

38.

Zablocki HL, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L, Baccetti T (2008) Effect of the transpalatal arch during extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133(6):852–860CrossRefPubMed

39.

Diar-Bakirly S, Feres MFN, Saltaji H, Flores-Mir C, El-Bialy T (2017) Effectiveness of the transpalatal arch in controlling orthodontic anchorage in maxillary premolar extraction cases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Angle Orthod 87(1):147–158. https://doi.org/10.2319/021216-120.1CrossRefPubMed

40.

Kusnoto J, Kusnoto H (2001) The effect of anterior tooth retraction on lip position of orthodontically treated adult Indonesians. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 120(3):304–307. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.116089CrossRefPubMed

41.

Il KY, Kim JR, Park SB (2010) Three-dimensional analysis of midfacial soft tissue changes according to maxillary superior movement after horizontal osteotomy of the maxilla. J Craniofac Surg 21(5):1587–1590. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0b013e3181edc5c9CrossRef

42.

Kim M, Lee D (2010) Three-dimensional evaluation of soft tissue changes after mandibular setback surgery in class III malocclusion patients according to extent of mandibular setback , vertical skeletal pattern , and genioplasty. YMOE 109(5):e20–e32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.01.002CrossRef

43.

Yasutomi H, Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts AL (2006) Effects of retraction of anterior teeth on horizontal and vertical lip positions in Japanese adults with the bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Orthod Waves 65(4):141–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.odw.2006.09.001CrossRef

44.

Hoyte T, Ali A, Bearn D (2021) Anchorage methods and treatment outcomes in the treatment of bimaxillary protrusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Waves 80(2):55–64CrossRef

45.

Ogundipe OK, Otuyemi OD (2017) Surgical and orthodontic treatment methods in patients with Bimaxillary protrusion—a systematic. Rev J West African Coll Surg 7(2):31–46 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29951464%0Ahttps://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC6016752)

46.

Geron S, Shpack N, Kandos S, Davidovitch M, Vardimon AD (2003) Anchorage loss—a multifactorial response. Angle Orthod 73(6):730–737PubMed

47.

Su H, Han B, Li S, Na B, Ma W, Xu TM (2014) Factors predisposing to maxillary anchorage loss: a retrospective study of 1403 cases. Plos One 9(10):e109561ADSCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Koyama I, Iino S, Abe Y, Takano-Yamamoto T, Miyawaki S (2011) Differences between sliding mechanics with implant Anchorage and straight-pull headgear and intermaxillary elastics in adults with bimaxillary protrusion. Eur J Orthod 33(2):126–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq047CrossRefPubMed

49.

Chen M, Li ZM, Liu X, Cai B, Wang DW, Feng ZC (2015) Differences of treatment outcomes between self-ligating brackets with microimplant and headgear anchorages in adults with bimaxillary protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 147(4):465–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.029CrossRefPubMed

50.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Soft tissue changes with skeletal anchorage in comparison to conventional anchorage protocols in the treatment of bimaxillary proclination patients treated with premolar extraction
A systematic review
verfasst von: Kumeran Mohan
Saritha Sivarajan
May Nak Lau
Siti Adibah Othman
Mona M. Salah Fayed
Publikationsdatum: 13.07.2022
Verlag: Springer Medizin
Erschienen in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Ausgabe 2/2024
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Elektronische ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-022-00411-9

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Zahnmedizin und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Soft tissue changes with skeletal anchorage in comparison to conventional anchorage protocols in the treatment of bimaxillary proclination patients treated with premolar extraction

A systematic review

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

Parodontalbehandlung verbessert Prognose bei Katheterablation

Newsletter

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2024

Anatomical and immunohistochemical analyses of the fusion of the premaxillary–maxillary suture in human fetuses

Three-dimensional mandibular characteristics in skeletal malocclusion

Oral health-related quality of life in patients with cleft lip and/or palate or Robin sequence

Low-level laser therapy, piezocision, or their combination vs. conventional treatment for orthodontic tooth movement

Mitteilungen der DGKFO

Evaluation´ of mandibular alveolar bone in patients with different vertical facial patterns

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

Parodontalbehandlung verbessert Prognose bei Katheterablation

Newsletter