No abstract

The objectives of this review were to evaluate the currently available evidence regarding the effectiveness of surgical versus non-surgical acceleration methods and the side effects associated with these methods. Nine databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE ® , Scopus ® , PubMed ® , Web of Science™, Google™ Scholar, Trip, OpenGrey, and PQDT OPEN from pro-Quest ® . ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP) were screened to explore ongoing studies and unpublished literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of patients who received surgical interventions (invasive or minimally invasive techniques) in conjunction with traditional fixed appliances and who were compared to the non-surgical interventions, were included. The Cochrane tool for risk of bias (RoB.2) was used for evaluating RCTs, whereas the ROBINS-I tool was used for the CCTs. This systematic review included four RCTs and two CCTs (154 patients). The surgical and non-surgical interventions were found to have the same effect on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) accelerating in four trials. In contrast, the surgical interventions were superior in the other two studies. High heterogeneity among the included studies prevented conducting the quantitative synthesis of the findings. The reported side effects related to the surgical and non-surgical interventions were similar. A "very low" to "low" evidence indicates that the effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical interventions in the acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement is similar, with no differences in the associated side effects. More high-quality clinical trials to compare the acceleration effectiveness between both modalities in different types of malocclusion is required.

In this study, we aimed to assess the current scientific evidence concerning the effectiveness of combining two acceleration techniques or repeating an acceleration procedure in comparison with the single application in terms of the speed of the orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). We performed a comprehensive electronic search to retrieve relevant studies on 10 databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fixed orthodontic treatment patients who received multiple types of acceleration techniques or underwent a repeated acceleration procedure compared to a single application were included. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was used for assessing the risk of bias of retrieved studies. A total of six RCTs were included in this review. Regarding multiple acceleration methods, it seems that the combination of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) with a surgical technique outperforms the single application of each technique separately. Additionally, the combination of two surgical interventions may have a synergistic effect leading to reduced treatment time compared to the application of a single intervention. Regarding acceleration method repetition, it seems that the re-application of surgical procedures twice is more efficient than the single application. The meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in the canine retraction rate between the four-weekly micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) (three times of applications) and both the eight-weekly MOPs (two times of applications) [mean difference (MD) = 0.24; 95% CI: -0.2-0.77; p = 0.36], as well as 12-weekly MOPs (two times of applications) (MD = 0.06; 95% CI: -0.14-0.27; p = 0.55). Based on very low evidence, combining two acceleration techniques is superior over a single application in accelerating tooth movement. Again, very low evidence suggests that the efficacy of repetition of surgical procedures twice and three times is similar. Further high-quality RCTs are required to assess the benefit of repeating an acceleration procedure or combining two different methods. In addition, more insight is needed into the possible side effects associated with the repetition or multiplicity of procedures.

No abstract

Background Surgical-assisted accelerated orthodontics (SAAO) has become very popular recently. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the extent to which researchers adhere to Item 19 (harms) of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) in the published studies in the field of SAAO. In addition, the study evaluated the possible association between harm reporting and the human development index (HDI) of the recruited research sample country, CiteScore-based quartile (CSBQ) of the publishing journal, invasiveness of the surgical intervention (ISI), and the type of orthodontic tooth movement (TOTM). Moreover, it aimed to summarize the different possible harms and complications that maybe encountered in the course of SAAO. Materials and methods Electronic searching of six databases was conducted for SAAO-related English RCTs published between January 2000 and April 2022. For the RCTs that did not report harms, information was sought by contacting the corresponding authors. Descriptive statistics of the evaluated variables were performed. The association between 'harm reporting' and the HDI of the research team, the BDRQ of the publication journal, the ISI, and the TOTM were investigated. Binary logistic regression was used, and the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) of the evaluated variables were obtained. Moreover, the risk of bias of the included RCTs was assessed using the RoB2 tool. Results Among the 91 included RCTs, 54 RCTs (59.3%) did not adhere to reporting harm associated with the SAAO. The non-adherence was significantly associated with the ISI (OR 0.16; CI 0.03–0.73; p < 0.018) for invasive methods compared with minimally invasive ones). There was a significant positive correlation between harm reporting and both the CSBQ of the publishing journal and the HDI of the recruited research sample country (p = 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively). On the contrary, a non-significant association was found between harm reporting and the type of OTM (p = 0.695). The incidence of harms associated with SAAO was approximately 17.5%. Limitations Assessment was restricted to English RCTs related to SAAO. Conclusion and implications The adherence to reporting harms in the field of SAAO was deficient. Efforts should be made by authors, peer reviewers, and editors to improve compliance with the CONSORT guidelines regarding harms reporting. Additionally, there is a wide spectrum of harms that could be associated with SAAO that the practitioner should pay attention to and alert the patient to the possibility of their occurrence.