IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of Anchorage Loss between Conventional and Self-ligating brackets – A Systematic review and meta-analysis
Introduction: Anchorage is defined as the resistance to unwanted tooth movement. In orthodontics, loss of anchorage can be detrimental to treatment. The proponents of orthodontic self-ligating brackets (SLB) advocate use of extremely light forces thereby reducing anchorage burden. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare anchorage loss during canine retraction between conventional brackets (CB) and self-ligating brackets.
Materials and Methods: Electronic search was conducted on PubMed, EBSCO, CINAHL, Dental and Oral Science along with hand searching the Cochrane database, Google Scholar and clinicaltrials.gov which yielded a total of 3722 hits. After screening for eligibility, five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis when applicable, using the RevMan Software. Outcomes studied were anchorage loss, retraction velocity and total amount of canine retraction.
Results: A total of 100 subjects were included in this systematic review. All studies were clinical trials using a split-mouth design. Of the five studies included, only one reported significant differences between CB and SLB for anchorage loss, retraction velocity and total amount of canine retraction (p-value ? 0.001). Results of the meta-analysis showed insignificant differences between the two groups across all parameters studied.
Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis found insufficient evidence to suggest a significant difference in anchorage loss between the CB and SLB groups. The scarcity of current evidence dictates that further studies are needed to canonically establish the clinical superiority of one over the other.
Materials and Methods: Electronic search was conducted on PubMed, EBSCO, CINAHL, Dental and Oral Science along with hand searching the Cochrane database, Google Scholar and clinicaltrials.gov which yielded a total of 3722 hits. After screening for eligibility, five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis when applicable, using the RevMan Software. Outcomes studied were anchorage loss, retraction velocity and total amount of canine retraction.
Results: A total of 100 subjects were included in this systematic review. All studies were clinical trials using a split-mouth design. Of the five studies included, only one reported significant differences between CB and SLB for anchorage loss, retraction velocity and total amount of canine retraction (p-value ? 0.001). Results of the meta-analysis showed insignificant differences between the two groups across all parameters studied.
Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis found insufficient evidence to suggest a significant difference in anchorage loss between the CB and SLB groups. The scarcity of current evidence dictates that further studies are needed to canonically establish the clinical superiority of one over the other.