A Comparison Of The Effects Of Forsus Appliances With And Without Temporary Anchorage Devices For Skeletal Class Ii Malocclusion: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis
Lu Liu,Qi Zhan,Jing Zhou,Qianyun Kuang,Xinyu Yan,Xiaoqi Zhang,Yue Shan,Wenli Lai,Hu Long
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/051120-421.1
2021-01-01
Abstract:Objectives: To compare the effects of Forsus appliances with and without temporary anchorage devices (TADs) for patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion.Materials and Methods: Through a predefined search strategy, electronic searching was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and SIGLE with no language restrictions. Eligible study selection, data extraction, and evaluation of risk of bias (Cochrane Collaboration tool) were conducted by two authors independently and in duplicate. Any disagreement was solved by discussion or judged by a third reviewer. Statistical pooling, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and assessment of small-study effects were conducted by using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis and Stata 12.0. Heterogeneity was analyzed for different types of study designs, TADs, and radiographic examinations.Results: Electronic search yielded a total of 256 studies after removing duplicates. Among them, six studies were finally included. All articles were of high quality. The pooled mean differences were - 0.27 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.59, 0.05) for SNA, 0.58 (95% CI: -0.07, 1.23) for SNB, - 0.86 (95% CI: -1.74, -0.03) for ANB, 1.63 (95% CI: 0.46, 2.80) for Co-Po, 0.75 (95% CI: 0.28, 1.23) for SN-MP, -7.56 (95% CI: -11.37, -3.76) for L1-MP, 0.47 (95% CI: -0.98, 1.91) for overjet, 0.39 (95% CI: -0.57, 1.35) for overbite, -1.84 (95% CI: -5.15, 1.47) for SN-OP, and 4.97 (95% CI: -1.22, 11.17) for nasolabial angle.Conclusions: TADs (especially miniplates) were able to eliminate dental adverse effects of Forsus appliances for correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion.