Comparative efficacy of the bone-anchored maxillary protraction protocols for orthopaedic treatment in skeletal Class III malocclusion: A Bayesian network meta-analysis
- PMID: 34468065
- DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12532
Comparative efficacy of the bone-anchored maxillary protraction protocols for orthopaedic treatment in skeletal Class III malocclusion: A Bayesian network meta-analysis
Abstract
Objective: To compare the treatment effects of five bone-anchored maxillary protraction protocols (BAC3E, BAMP, BARME-FM, BARME-ME, SAFM) for skeletal Class III malocclusion.
Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search through CENTRAL, EBSCO, PubMed and Web of Science and included the randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials, which met the criteria. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) for SNA, SNB, ANB, SN-MP and Wits appraisal was performed in R software using a random consistency model. The additional analyses included node-splitting analysis, statistical heterogeneity analysis, sensitivity analysis and ranking probability by SUCRA.
Results: A total of 598 articles were initially obtained; 13 articles involving 482 individuals were eventually included. Among the five bone-anchored maxillary protraction protocols, the largest increment in SNA and Wits appraisal was observed in the BAMP group and BAC3E group, respectively; the SAFM, BAC3E and BAMP groups showed similar capability in terms of changes of ANB; least clockwise rotation of the mandible was found in the BARME-ME group, followed by the BAMP group; dental compensation appears to be most pronounced in the BAC3E group; and intermaxillary traction seems to reduce the lingual inclination of lower incisors and even cause labial inclination.
Conclusions: The SAFM, BAMP and BAC3E groups seem to be advantageous in the improvement of the maxillo-mandibular relationship, followed by the BARME-FM and BARME-ME groups. The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution as only short-term effects were compared and the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. More RCTs with high-quality and long-term investigation are needed.
Keywords: Class III malocclusion; bone anchors; network meta-analysis; orthopaedic treatment.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Toffol LD, Pavoni C, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Cozza P. Orthopedic treatment outcomes in Class III malocclusion. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:561-573.
-
- Zere E, Chaudhari PK, Sharan J, Dhingra K, Tiwari N. Developing Class III malocclusions: challenges and solutions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2018;10:99-116.
-
- De Clerck H, Cevidanes L, Baccetti T. Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138:577-581.
-
- Jamilian A, Haraji A, Showkatbakhsh R, Valaee N. The effects of miniscrew with Class III traction in growing patients with maxillary deficiency. Int J Orthod Milwaukee. 2011;22:25-30.
-
- Sar C, Sahinoglu Z, Ozcirpici AA, Uckan S. Dentofacial effects of skeletal anchored treatment modalities for the correction of maxillary retrognathia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145:41-54.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
