Spyridon N. Papageorgiou

Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION Risk factors concerning orthodontic miniscrew implants have not been adequately assessed. In this systematic review, we summarize the knowledge from published clinical trials regarding the failure rates of miniscrew implants used for orthodontic anchorage purposes and identify the factors that possibly affect them. METHODS Nineteen electronic databases and reference lists of included studies were searched up to February 2011, with no restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials, prospective controlled trials, and prospective cohort studies were included. Study selection and data extraction were performed twice. Failure event rates, relative risks, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The random-effects model was used to assess each factors impact. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also implemented. RESULTS Fifty-two studies were included for the overall miniscrew implant failure rate and 30 studies for the investigation of risk factors. From the 4987 miniscrew implants used in 2281 patients, the overall failure rate was 13.5% (95% confidence interval, 11.5-15.8). Failures of miniscrew implants were not associated with patient sex or age and miniscrew implant insertion side, whereas they were significantly associated with jaw of insertion. Certain trends were identified through exploratory analysis; however, because of the small number of original studies, no definite conclusions could be drawn. CONCLUSIONS Orthodontic miniscrew implants have a modest small mean failure rate, indicating their usefulness in clinical practice. Although many factors seem to affect their failure rates, the majority of them still need additional evidence to support any possible associations.

Clinical Effectiveness of Orthodontic Miniscrew Implants: a Meta-analysis

The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine the clinical effectiveness of miniscrew implants (MI) used for anchorage reinforcement compared with that of conventional orthodontic means, as well as to assess the success rates of MIs and the possible risk factors affecting their clinical effectiveness. Literature searches were conducted, and, using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, two independent investigators performed data extraction and analysis. Overall pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained with the random-effects model. Eight out of 3183 original papers met the inclusion criteria. The mean difference of anchorage loss between the MI and conventional anchorage group was −2.4 mm (95% CI = −2.9 mm to −1.8 mm, p = 0). MIs significantly decreased or negated loss of anchorage. Anchorage loss seemed to be less in the mandible, when the MIs were inserted between the second premolar and the first molar, when 2 MIs were inserted per patient jaw, when they were directly connected, as well as when treatment lasted more than 12 months. MIs presented a success rate of 87.7%, with no significant differences between the various subgroups. However, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with some caution because of the number, quality, and heterogeneity of the included studies.

Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Systematic reviews (SRs) are published with an increasing rate in many fields of biomedical literature, including orthodontics. Although SRs should consolidate the evidence-based characteristics of contemporary orthodontic practice, doubts on the validity of their conclusions have been frequently expressed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodology and quality characteristics of orthodontic SRs as well as to assess their quality of reporting during the last years. Electronic databases were searched for SRs (without any meta-analytical data synthesis) in the field of orthodontics, indexed up to the start of 2010. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool was used for quality assessment of the included articles. Data were analyzed with Students t-test, one-way ANOVA, and linear regression. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to represent changes during the years in reporting of key items associated with quality. A total of 110 SRs were included in this evaluation. About half of the SRs (46.4%) were published in orthodontic journals, while few (5.5%) were updates of previously published reviews. Using the AMSTAR tool, thirty (27.3%) of the SRs were found to be of low quality, 63 (57.3%) of medium quality, and 17 (15.5%) of high quality. No significant trend for quality improvement was observed during the last years. The overall quality of orthodontic SRs may be considered as medium. Although the number of orthodontic SRs has increased over the last decade, their quality characteristics can be characterized as moderate.

Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To assess the treatment effects of fixed functional appliances (FFAs) in treated versus untreated Class II patients by means of lateral cephalometric radiographs. SEARCH METHODS Unrestricted electronic search of 18 databases and additional manual searches up to October 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA Prospective randomized and non-randomized controlled trials reporting on cephalometric angular measurements of Class II patients treated with FFAs and their matched untreated controls. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Skeletal, dental, and soft tissue cephalometric data were annualized and stratified according to the time of evaluation in effects. Following risk of bias evaluation, the mean differences (MDs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with random-effects models. Patient- and appliance-related subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with mixed-effects models. RESULTS Nine studies were included (244 patients; mean age: 13.5 years and 174 untreated controls; mean age: 12.8 years) reporting on cephalometric effects directly after the removal of FFAs. FFAs were found to induce a small reduction of SNA angle (MD = -0.83 degree/year, 95 % CI: -1.17 to -0.48), a small increase of SNB angle (MD = 0.87 degree/year, 95 % CI: 0.30-1.43), and moderate decrease of ANB angle (MD = -1.74 degree/year, 95 % CI: -2.50 to -0.98) compared to untreated Class II patients. FFA treatment resulted in significant dentoalveolar and soft tissue changes. Several patient- or appliance-related factors seem to affect the treatment outcome. Long-term effectiveness of FFAs could not be assessed due to limited evidence. CONCLUSIONS According to existing evidence, FFAs seem to be effective in improving Class II malocclusion in the short term, although their effects seem to be mainly dentoalveolar rather than skeletal.

Reporting characteristics of meta-analyses in orthodontics: methodological assessment and statistical recommendations

Ideally meta-analyses (MAs) should consolidate the characteristics of orthodontic research in order to produce an evidence-based answer. However severe flaws are frequently observed in most of them. The aim of this study was to evaluate the statistical methods, the methodology, and the quality characteristics of orthodontic MAs and to assess their reporting quality during the last years. Electronic databases were searched for MAs (with or without a proper systematic review) in the field of orthodontics, indexed up to 2011. The AMSTAR tool was used for quality assessment of the included articles. Data were analyzed with Students t-test, one-way ANOVA, and generalized linear modelling. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to represent changes during the years in reporting of key items associated with quality. A total of 80 MAs with 1086 primary studies were included in this evaluation. Using the AMSTAR tool, 25 (27.3%) of the MAs were found to be of low quality, 37 (46.3%) of medium quality, and 18 (22.5%) of high quality. Specific characteristics like explicit protocol definition, extensive searches, and quality assessment of included trials were associated with a higher AMSTAR score. Model selection and dealing with heterogeneity or publication bias were often problematic in the identified reviews. The number of published orthodontic MAs is constantly increasing, while their overall quality is considered to range from low to medium. Although the number of MAs of medium and high level seems lately to rise, several other aspects need improvement to increase their overall quality.

Clinical effects of pre-adjusted edgewise orthodontic brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Fixed-appliance treatment is a major part of orthodontic treatment, but clinical evidence remains scarce. OBJECTIVES Objective of this systematic review was to investigate how the therapeutic effects and side-effects of brackets used during the fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment are affected by their characteristics. SEARCH METHODS AND SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched MEDLINE and 18 other databases through April 2012 without restrictions for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials investigating any bracket characteristic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS After duplicate selection and extraction procedures, risk of bias was assessed also in duplicate according to Cochrane guidelines and quality of evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation. Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Random-effects meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were performed with the corresponding 95 per cent confidence intervals (CI) and 95 per cent prediction intervals (PI). RESULTS We included 25 trials on 1321 patients, with most comparing self-ligated (SL) and conventional brackets. Based on the meta-analyses, the duration of orthodontic treatment was on average 2.01 months longer among patients with SL brackets (95 per cent CI: 0.45 to 3.57). The 95 per cent PIs for a future trial indicated that the difference could be considerable (-1.46 to 5.47 months). Treatment characteristics, outcomes, and side-effects were clinically similar between SL and conventional brackets. For most bracket characteristics, evidence is insufficient. Some meta-analyses included trials with high risk of bias, but sensitivity analyses indicated robustness. CONCLUSIONS Based on existing evidence, no clinical recommendation can be made regarding the bracket material or different ligation modules. For SL brackets, no conclusive benefits could be proven, while their use was associated with longer treatment durations.

Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Part I - How to choose effect measure and statistical model

Systematic reviews ideally provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence from clinical studies, whilst meta-analysis combines the results of these studies to produce an overall estimate. Collectively, this makes them invaluable for clinical decision-making. Although the number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics has increased, questions are often raised about their methodological soundness. In this primer, the first steps of meta-analysis are discussed, namely the choice of an effect measure to express the results of included studies, and the choice of a statistical model for the meta-analysis. Clinical orthodontic examples are given to explain the various options available, the thought process behind the choice between them and their interpretation.

Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Part II - Is all that glitters gold?

Systematic reviews with quantitative synthesis of included studies (meta-analysis) are being produced at increased rates in orthodontics. However, their reporting quality is often suboptimal, and methodological limitations can affect their conclusions. This article is designed to help orthodontists critically appraise the validity of a meta-analysis by providing 11 questions that address the planning, conduct and interpretation of these investigations.

Effect of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs on Bone Turnover: An Evidence-Based Review

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently used for acute and chronic pain control and treatment of inflammation, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. NSAIDs have been shown to inhibit bone healing in animal studies due to the inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis. However, little evidence exists regarding the effect of NSAID exposure on human bone metabolism. This systematic review summarizes the current literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating NSAIDs with bone remodeling-related outcomes in humans. After performing computerized searches in the most widely indexed databases, study selection, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted in duplicate. The results were controversial regarding the association of NSAID with bone formation or resorption. Increased bone mineral density following NSAID exposure was reported by some studies. Based on the levels of biochemical markers, no effect was seen on bone formation, while some evidence was found for a decreased rate of bone resorption in NSAID patients. Trials investigating the effects of NSAID treatment on bone metabolism outcomes of human patients are limited. Further research is required to confirm or refute the findings of this systematic review.

Effectiveness of pre-surgical infant orthopedic treatment for cleft lip and palate patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The objective of the study was to systematically summarize current evidence on the effectiveness of pre-surgical infant orthopedics (PSIO) in cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients. Electronic and manual searches were conducted, and using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction and analysis was performed by two independent investigators. When possible, overall pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals were obtained using the random-effects model. Twenty-four of 885 original studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis, whereas 10 of them were included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Except for the variable M-T-C(5) assessing maxillary arch form, which presented an increase at 48 months of follow-up, all other variables concerning craniofacial and dentoalveolar changes demonstrated no significant differences, indicating that PSIO treatment has no effect on CLP patients. The limited evidence derived from this study does not seem to support the short- or long-term effectiveness of PSIO in CLP patients.