Κατεύθυνση ΒιοστατιστικήLibrary of the School of Health Sciences
Καθηγήτρια κ. Κατσουγιάννη Κλέα, Επίκουρη Καθηγήτρια κ. Μπάμια Χριστίνα, Επίκουρος Καθηγητής κ. Σιάννης Φώτιος
A comparison of the short-term treatment effects in orthodontic patients with maxillary defficiency: bone-anchored versus tooth-anchored maxillary protraction. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
AIM: To systematically search the literature on comparing the effects of
maxillary protraction by means of facemask versus bone-anchored appliances in
patients with maxillary defficiency and to apply a model for evidence synthesis
adjusting for bias.
MATERIALS-METHODS: Electronic database searches of published and unpublished
literature. Two review authors performed data extraction and quality assessment
independently. SNA, A-N-perp-FH and Co-A were primary outcomes.
RESULTS: From the 542 identified articles, after application of the
inclusion-exclusion criteria, 5 studies were finally included, all of high risk
of bias. Effect size for SNA was found 0.87 higher in the BAMP group with 95%
CI=(0.37, 1.37). The bias-adjusted model showed 0.57 (-0.48, 1.61)
respectively. The effect size of A-N-perp-FH was found 1.13 mm (0.56, 1.70)
using fixed-effects and 0.90 mm (-0.2, 2) using the bias-adjusted model. The
effect size of effective mid-facial length was found 1.18 mm (0.01 ,2.34) using
the random-effects model. The bias-adjusted model showed 1.09 mm (-0.36, 2.54)
CONCLUSION: Bone-anchored maxillary protraction might provide a slightly
greater maxillary advancement with less dento-alveolar side-effects. The
bias-adjusted model has certain limitations, but in all, it seems to be a
useful solution in the presence of methodological heterogeneity between the
Meta-analysis, Bias, Orthodontics, Retrognathia, Heterogeneity
File access is restricted only to the intranet of UoA.