IADR Abstract Archives
COMPARISON OF CANINE RETRACTION RATE BETWEEN MINISCREW ASSISTED MICRO-OSTEOPERFORATION AND CONVENTIONAL TECHNIQUE – A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Objectives: This study aimed to find the difference in canine retraction rate between micro-osteoperforation (MOP) and conventional technique (CT) in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. The current review aimed to systematically gather data for the synthesis of results to increase the strength of the evidence in the literature. These findings will help orthodontists to achieve desired outcomes with maximum results in a shorter period
Methods: Online databases (PubMed, Dental and Oral Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were deliberately looked electronically for articles up until July 2022. Micro-osteoperforation was considered as an intervention whereas the conventional technique was taken as a control. The outcome assessed was the rate of tooth movement. The risk of bias in clinical trials was assessed with (RoB) 2.0. The meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan software V.5.3.5.22. The outcome was estimated using weighted average difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The studies’ heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane's heterogeneity test (I2 Test).
Results: Five articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The rate of tooth movement was assessed at pre- and post-canine retraction in 105 patients who underwent canine retraction under miniscrew assisted micro-osteoperforation versus conventional technique. There was a statistically significant difference in canine retraction rate between miniscrew assisted micro-osteoperforation and conventional technique (95% CI: 0.05, 0.19). Canine retraction in 3rd month showed a marked significant difference towards the micro osteoperforation group over the conventional technique (Mean difference: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.05,0.19).
Conclusions: Micro-osteoperforation can be used clinically to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement by reducing the treatment time. There is a significant increase in the canine retraction rate with miniscrew assisted micro-osteoperforation as compared to the conventional canine retraction.
Methods: Online databases (PubMed, Dental and Oral Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were deliberately looked electronically for articles up until July 2022. Micro-osteoperforation was considered as an intervention whereas the conventional technique was taken as a control. The outcome assessed was the rate of tooth movement. The risk of bias in clinical trials was assessed with (RoB) 2.0. The meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan software V.5.3.5.22. The outcome was estimated using weighted average difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The studies’ heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane's heterogeneity test (I2 Test).
Results: Five articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The rate of tooth movement was assessed at pre- and post-canine retraction in 105 patients who underwent canine retraction under miniscrew assisted micro-osteoperforation versus conventional technique. There was a statistically significant difference in canine retraction rate between miniscrew assisted micro-osteoperforation and conventional technique (95% CI: 0.05, 0.19). Canine retraction in 3rd month showed a marked significant difference towards the micro osteoperforation group over the conventional technique (Mean difference: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.05,0.19).
Conclusions: Micro-osteoperforation can be used clinically to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement by reducing the treatment time. There is a significant increase in the canine retraction rate with miniscrew assisted micro-osteoperforation as compared to the conventional canine retraction.