Surgical-Periodontal aspects in orthodontic traction of palatally displaced canines: a meta-analysis

Abstract

The aim was to determine whether there is a difference in the periodontal aspect (gingival recession, probing pocket depth) of the palatally displaced canine (PDC) compared to the contralateral canine. Also, from a surgical perspective, sought to determine whether there is a difference (surgical duration, postoperative pain) between the surgical techniques. The word combinations were adapted for each electronic database: PubMed, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and gray literature. Studies that met the following criteria were considered eligible: (P) Patients who received orthodontic-surgical treatment for correction of PDC; (I) Performing orthodontic-surgical treatment for traction of the PDC; (C) Comparison of the tractioned canine with its contralateral or between the two techniques; (O) Gingival recession, probing pocket depth, postoperative complications and surgical duration; (S) Randomized and nonrandomized clinical studies or observational studies. The overall prevalence of gingival recession was estimated to be 10.53% [95% CI, 3.87% - 25.59%; I² = 88%]. No statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) was found between the means of the variables gingival recession, probing pocket depth and surgical duration. The evidence suggests that traction of palatally displaced canines can be considered a reliable and acceptable procedure.

Keywords: Canine; Ectopic; Oral surgical procedures; Systematic review; Tooth eruption.

Fig. 1

Flowchart of search criteria and literature selection.

Fig. 2

Cochrane’s tool to assessed risk of bias in randomized controlled trials. Green indicates a low risk of bias, yellow indicates an unclear risk of bias, and red indicates a high risk of bias. a) Risk of bias summary; b) Graph.

Fig. 3

Cohort studies assessed using Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (Mastari) critical appraisal tools. Green indicates a low risk of bias, yellow indicates an unclear risk of bias, and red indicates a high risk of bias. a) Risk of bias summary; b) Graph.

Fig. 4

Forest plot of the prevalence of canine gingival recession after orthodontic-surgical treatment.

Fig. 5

Comparison between impacted canine versus contralateral canine, after orthodontic-surgical treatment, for the outcome of gingival recession.

Fig. 6

Comparison between the impacted canine versus the contralateral canine, after orthodontic-surgical treatment, for the probing pocket depth outcome: a) distobuccal; b) midbuccal; c) mesiobuccal; d) distolingual; e) midlingual; f) mesiolingual.

Fig. 7

Comparison between open technique versus closed technique for the outcome time of surgery.