pISSN 2234-7518
eISSN 2005-372X
eISSN 2005-372X
Systematic reviews that assessed anchorage reinforcement devices during orthodontic treatment
| Author | Year | Study design | No. of studies | No. of participants | Intervention anchorage | Comparison anchorage | Type of studies | Period of search | Journal | Main outcomes | Quality of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feldmann and Bondemark8 | 2006 | Systematic review | 14 (7 of these are related to the aim of the current study) | 388 | Space closure with different techniques | Different anchorage devices/methods | 2 RCTs | January, 1966 to December, 2004 | Angle Orthodontist | Due to contradictory results and the vast heterogeneity in study methods, the scientific evidence was too weak to evaluate anchorage efficiency during space closure | Critically low |
| 3 Retrospective studies | Score: 4 | ||||||||||
| 2 Prospective studies | |||||||||||
| Li et al.20 | 2011 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 8 | 392 | Midpalatal implant, mini-implant, and onplant | Headgear | 4 RCTs | Not reported | Angle Orthodontist | The skeletal anchorage of the midpalatal implant, mini-implant, and onplant offer better alternatives to headgear, with less anchorage loss and more anterior teeth retraction | Critically low |
| 1 Prospective cohort study | Score: 7 | ||||||||||
| 3 Retrospective studies | |||||||||||
| Papadopoulos et al.21 | 2011 | Meta-analysis | 8 | 206 | Mini-implants | Different types (TPA, headgear, banding the second molar and application of differential moments). | 3 RCTs | Up to June, 2010 | Journal of Dental Research | The use of mini-implants significantly decreased or negated loss of anchorage | Moderate |
| Mini-implants were also compared according to location, number, and etc. | 5 CCTs | Score: 10 | |||||||||
| Jambi et al.22 | 2014 | Systematic review and meta-analysis (Cochrane Review) | 15 (11 for meta-analysis) | 561 | Mid-palatal implants, onplants, mini-screw implants, spider screws, titanium plates and zygomatic wires | Conventional methods (headgear, chin caps, face masks, transpalatal arches, Nance buttons, lingual arches and interarch elastics). | RCTs | Up to October 28, 2013 | Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews | Reinforcement of anchorage is more effective with surgical anchorage than conventional anchorage methods | High |
| Studies with two methods of surgically assisted anchorage were also included. | Score: 15 | ||||||||||
| Antoszewska-Smith et al.23 | 2017 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 14 | 616 | Miniscrew and miniplate | TPA and headgear | 7 RCTs | 1990 to March, 2016 | American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics | Skeletal anchorage devices are more effective for |
Moderate |
| 7 CCTs | Score: 10 | ||||||||||
| Diar-Bakirly et al.24 | 2017 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 14 (13 for meta-analysis) | 579 | TPA | Other types of anchorage including skeletal anchorage (miniscrews, onplants), and headgear | 9 RCTs | Up to April 2015 | Angle Orthodontist | Transpalatal arch alone should not be recommended to provide maximum anchorage during retraction of anterior teeth in extraction cases | Moderate |
| 5 Non-RCTs | Score:11 | ||||||||||
| Jayaratne et al.25 | 2017 | Systematic review | 6 | 327 | Mini-implants | Different types (TPA, headgear, banding the second molar and application of differential moments) | RCTs | Up to May, 2015 | Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry | The amount of incisor retraction and intrusion was greater with buccally placed mini-implants when compared to conventional anchorage techniques | Low |
| Score: 8 | |||||||||||
| Xu and Xie26 | 2017 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 14 | 450 | Mini-implants | Conventional anchorage | 8 RCTs | December, 1966 to March, 2016 | Angle Orthodontist | Mini-implant anchorage was more effective in retracting the anterior teeth, produced less anchorage loss, and had a greater effect on SN-MP for the high-angle patients than did conventional anchorage | Moderate |
| 6 CCTs | Score: 9 | ||||||||||
| Alharbi et al.30 | 2019 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 7 (6 for meta-analysis) | 271 | Miniscrews | Different types (TPA, headgear, banding the second molar and application of differential moments) | RCTs | Up to March 16, 2018 | Acta Odontologica Scandinavica | Miniscrews are more effective in preserving orthodontic anchorage than conventional appliances | Moderate |
| Score: 14 | |||||||||||
| Becker et al.27 | 2018 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 12 (7 for meta-analysis) | 393 | Mini-implants | Different types (TPA, headgear, Nance button, lingual arch, mushroom loops, intrusion arch, banding the second molar, application of different moments) | 9 RCTs | 1992 to December 31, 2017 | International Journal of Implant Dentistry | Maximum anchorage |
Moderate |
| 1 CCT | Moderate Score: 12 |
||||||||||
| 1 Cohort study | |||||||||||
| Khlef et al.28 | 2018 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 4 | 150 | Two-step retraction of the upper anterior associated with conventional anchorage | 2 RCTs | January, 1990 to April, 2018 | Contemporary Clinical Dentistry | There is a very weak-to-moderate evidence that using skeletal anchorage devices with |
Moderate | |
| 2 CCTs | Score: 14 | ||||||||||
| Khlef et al.29 | 2019 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 8 (5 for meta-analysis) | 255 | 6 RCTs | January, 1990 to April, 2018 | The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice | There is weak to moderate evidence that using skeletal anchorage devices would lead to better posterior anchorage than using conventional anchorage | Moderate | ||
| 2 CCTs | Score: 13 | ||||||||||
| Liu et al.31 | 2020 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 12 | Not reported | Mini-implants | Different types (TPA, headgear, Nance button, lingual arch) | 4 RCTs | Up to July, 2018 | The Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice | Mini-implants seem to be more effective than the conventional anchorage devices in terms of minimizing unintended mesial movement of molars with maximum retraction of anterior teeth | High |
| 3 Prospective controlled trials | Score: 13 | ||||||||||
| 5 Retrospective studies | |||||||||||
| Tian et al.32 | 2020 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 8 | 146 | Miniscrew (during the first phase of the two-step retraction technique) | Different types (TPA, lingual arch, and dental anchorage) | 3 RCTs | Up to June 30, 2019 | BMC Oral Health | Anchorage with miniscrew is more efficient than conventional anchorage during canine retraction | Moderate |
| 5 CCTs | Score: 12 |
Score of each review represents the number of “YES” answers in the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) checklist. However, this may not always reflect the quality as items do not have the same weight.
RCT, randomized controlled trial; CCT, controlled clinical trial; TPA, transpalatal arch; SN-MP, sella-nasion to mandibular plane angle.