The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Outcomes of comprehensive fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: A systematic review with meta-analysis and methodological overview

  • Papageorgiou, Spyridon N. (Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich) ;
  • Hochli, Damian (Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich) ;
  • Eliades, Theodore (Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich)
  • Received : 2017.01.10
  • Accepted : 2017.03.29
  • Published : 2017.11.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the occlusal outcome and duration of fixed orthodontic therapy from clinical trials in humans with the Objective Grading System (OGS) proposed by the American Board of Orthodontics. Methods: Nine databases were searched up to October 2016 for prospective/retrospective clinical trials assessing the outcomes of orthodontic therapy with fixed appliances. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment according to the Cochrane guidelines, random-effects meta-analyses of the mean OGS score and treatment duration were performed and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: A total of 34 relevant clinical trials including 6,207 patients (40% male, 60% female; average age, 18.4 years) were identified. The average OGS score after treatment was 27.9 points (95% CI, 25.3-30.6 points), while the average treatment duration was 24.9 months (95% CI, 24.6-25.1 months). There was no significant association between occlusal outcome and treatment duration, while considerable heterogeneity was identified. In addition, orthodontic treatment involving extraction of four premolars appeared to have an important effect on both outcomes and duration of treatment. Finally, only 10 (39%) of the identified studies matched compared groups by initial malocclusion severity, although meta-epidemiological evidence suggested that matching may have significantly influenced their results. Conclusions: The findings from this systematic review suggest that the occlusal outcomes of fixed appliance treatment vary considerably, with no significant association between treatment outcomes and duration. Prospective matched clinical studies that use the OGS tool are needed to compare the effectiveness of orthodontic appliances.

Keywords

References

  1. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Active or passive self-ligating brackets? A randomized controlled trial of comparative efficiency in resolving maxillary anterior crowding in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:12.e1-6; discussion 12-3.
  2. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Comparative assessment of conventional and self-ligating appliances on the effect of mandibular intermolar distance in adolescent nonextraction patients: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:e99-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.03.019
  3. Papageorgiou SN, Konstantinidis I, Papadopoulou K, Jager A, Bourauel C. A systematic review and metaanalysis of experimental clinical evidence on initial aligning archwires and archwire sequences. Orthod Craniofac Res 2014;17:197-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12048
  4. Papageorgiou SN, Konstantinidis I, Papadopoulou K, Jager A, Bourauel C. Clinical effects of pre-adjusted edgewise orthodontic brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 2014;36:350-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt064
  5. Papageorgiou SN, Golz L, Jager A, Eliades T, Bourauel C. Lingual vs. labial fixed orthodontic appliances: systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effects. Eur J Oral Sci 2016;124:105-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12250
  6. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, et al. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:589-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70179-9
  7. Mislik B, Konstantonis D, Katsadouris A, Eliades T. University clinic and private practice treatment outcomes in Class I extraction and nonextraction patients: a comparative study with the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:253-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.10.012
  8. Pinskaya YB, Hsieh TJ, Roberts WE, Hartsfield JK. Comprehensive clinical evaluation as an outcome assessment for a graduate orthodontics program. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:533-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.05.017
  9. Cangialosi TJ, Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr, Dykhouse VJ, Moffitt AH, Grubb JE, et al. The ABO discrepancy index: a measure of case complexity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:270-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.01.005
  10. Dougherty HL. The orthodontic standard of care. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;99:482-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81583-5
  11. Vig KWL, Firestone A, Wood W, Lenk M. Quality of orthodontic treatment. Semin Orthod 2007;13:81-7. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2007.03.003
  12. Mavreas D, Athanasiou AE. Factors affecting the duration of orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:386-95. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn018
  13. Tsichlaki A, Chin SY, Pandis N, Fleming PS. How long does treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances last? A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:308-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.09.020
  14. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [Internet]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 [updated 2011 Mar; cited 2016 Dec 3]. Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org/.
  15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:e1-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
  16. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:377-84. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377
  17. Veroniki AA, Jackson D, Viechtbauer W, Bender R, Bowden J, Knapp G, et al. Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in metaanalysis. Res Synth Methods 2016;7:55-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1164
  18. Papageorgiou SN. Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Part I--How to choose effect measure and statistical model. J Orthod 2014;41:317-26. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313314Y.0000000111
  19. Papageorgiou SN. Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Part II--Is all that glitters gold? J Orthod 2014; 41:327-36. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313314Y.0000000110
  20. IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Rovers MM, Goeman JJ. Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010247. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247
  21. Ioannidis JP. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract 2008; 14:951-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.00986.x
  22. Tsichlaki A, Chin SY, Pandis N, Fleming PS. How long does treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances last? A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:308-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.09.020
  23. Djeu G, Shelton C, Maganzini A. Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:292-8; discussion 298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.002
  24. Viwattanatipa N, Buapuean W, Komoltri C. Relationship between discrepancy index and the objective grading system in thai board of orthodontics patients. Orthod Waves 2016;75:54-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.odw.2016.08.001
  25. Papageorgiou SN, Xavier GM, Cobourne MT. Basic study design influences the results of orthodontic clinical investigations. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68:1512-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.008
  26. Papageorgiou SN, Koretsi V, Jager A. Bias from historical control groups used in orthodontic research: a meta-epidemiological study. Eur J Orthod 2017;39:98-105. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjw035
  27. Marques LS, Freitas Junior Nd, Pereira LJ, Ramos- Jorge ML. Quality of orthodontic treatment performed by orthodontists and general dentists. Angle Orthod 2012;82:102-6. https://doi.org/10.2319/061311-389.1
  28. CoHong M, Kook YA, Baek SH, Kim MK. Comparison of treatment outcome assessment for class I malocclusion patients: peer assessment rating versus American board of orthodontics-objective grading system. J Korean Dent Sci 2014;7:6-15. https://doi.org/10.5856/JKDS.2014.7.1.6
  29. Hong M, Kook YA, Kim MK, Lee JI, Kim HG, Baek SH. The Improvement and Completion of Outcome index: A new assessment system for quality of orthodontic treatment. Korean J Orthod 2016;46:199-211. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.4.199
  30. Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med 2002;21:2917-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1296
  31. Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Reporting characteristics of meta-analyses in orthodontics: methodological assessment and statistical recommendations. Eur J Orthod 2014;36:74-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt008
  32. Hernandez AV, Steyerberg EW, Habbema JD. Covariate adjustment in randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcomes increases statistical power and reduces sample size requirements. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:454-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.09.014
  33. Papageorgiou SN, Kloukos D, Petridis H, Pandis N. Publication of statistically significant research findings in prosthodontics & implant dentistry in the context of other dental specialties. J Dent 2015;43:1195-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.08.005

Cited by

  1. Does orthodontic treatment have a permanent effect on tooth color? : A systematic review and meta-analysis vol.79, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-018-0123-7
  2. Effect of orthodontic treatment on periodontal clinical attachment: a systematic review and meta-analysis vol.40, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjx052
  3. Failure patterns of different bracket systems and their influence on treatment duration: A retrospective cohort study vol.88, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2319/081817-559.1
  4. Evaluation of orthodontically induced external root resorption following orthodontic treatment using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT): a systematic review and meta-analysis vol.41, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjy027
  5. Outcomes of orthodontic treatment performed by individual orthodontists vs 2 orthodontists collaborating on treatment vol.158, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.07.015
  6. Duration of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in adolescents and adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis vol.21, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-020-00334-4
  7. Orthopedic Treatment for Class II Malocclusion with Functional Appliances and Its Effect on Upper Airways: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis vol.9, pp.12, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9123806
  8. Incisor and profile alterations in extraction cases treated with standard Edgewise and pre-adjusted appliances: A controlled before-and-after study vol.10, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2021.04.001
  9. Effects of self-ligating brackets and other factors influencing orthodontic treatment outcomes: A prospective cohort study vol.51, pp.6, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2021.51.6.397