Corticotomy in orthodontic treatment: systematic review

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate corticotomies effects to accelerate or facilitate dental movements in different kind of orthodontic treatments. Data: This report followed the PRISMA Statement. A total of 9 articles were included in review. Sources: Two reviewers performed a literature search up to December 2018 in four databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and SciELO. Study selection: Controlled clinical trials and randomized controlled clinical trials conducted in human patients and published during the last 10 years in English were eligible to be selected. The articles should give detailed information about the results and treatment parameters. There were no limitations established in terms of the type of malocclusion to be corrected or the type of orthodontic treatment performed. Results: The methodological quality and evidence of the selected studies was low. Most of the studies observed a statistically significant increase in the rate of dental movement, when performing alveolar corticotomies as coadjuvants of orthodontic treatment; either with the conventional technique or with piezocision. The effect of combining corticotomy with bone grafts was assessed. Conclusions: High heterogeneity among studies made it difficult to draw clear conclusions. However, within the limitations of this review, the corticotomy procedures were able to statistically and clinically produce significant temporary decrease in orthodontic tooth movement rate. This technique does not seem to involve major complications compared to conventional orthodontic treatments. Clinical relevance: The use of this technique can reduce treatment time and therefore the undesirable effects associated with prolonged treatments.

The effectiveness of surgical adjunctive procedures in the acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis

“…This systematic review of systematic reviews included 9 quantitative reviews (systematic review with meta-analysis) (Alfawal et al, 2016;Dab et al, 2019;Fleming et al, 2015;Fu et al, 2019;Kamal et al, 2019;Mheissen et al, 2020;Shahabee et al, 2020;Sivarajan et al, 2020;Zimmo et al, 2018) and Five qualitative reviews (systematic review with narrative-analysis) (Apalimova et al, 2020;Figueiredo et al, 2019;Rekhi et al, 2020;Viwattanatipa and Charnchairerk, 2018;Yi et al, 2017). Eight studies (Alfawal et al, 2016;Fleming et al, 2015;Kamal et al, 2019;Rekhi et al, 2020;Shahabee et al, 2020;Sivarajan et al, 2020;Viwattanatipa and Charnchairerk, 2018;Zimmo et al, 2018) included only randomised controlled trials, while the rest included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials.…”

“…PT ( 1) SM ( 2) SM+PT ( 1) CR ( 3 The quality of the included reviews A summary of the quality of the included reviews is given in Table 2. Using AMSTAR 2, two studies (Dab et al, 2019;Fu et al, 2019) were appraised as critically low-quality reviews, seven studies (Alfawal et al, 2016;Apalimova et al, 2020;Kamal et al, 2019;Shahabee et al, 2020;Sivarajan et al, 2020;Zimmo et al, 2018, Yi et al, 2017) were appraised as low-quality reviews and five studies (Fleming et al, 2015;Figueiredo et al, 2019;Mheissen et al, 2020;Rekhi et al, 2020;Viwattanatipa and Charnchairerk, 2018) were appraised as moderate-quality reviews.…”

“…Four of the included reviews (Alfawal et al, 2016;Dab et al, 2019;Fleming et al, 2015;Mheissen et al, 2020) provided a justification of primary studies exclusion. All studies, except the one by Dab et al (2019) and Apalimova et al (2020), assessed the risk of bias of the primary non-randomised controlled trials using a suitable tool. The included reviews lack the reporting of the funding of the primary clinical trials, which is a weakness in most, as three of the included reviews (Dab et al 2019;Sivarajan et al 2020;Viwattanatipa and Charnchairerk 2018) did not provide the funding details and one study (Yi et al, 2017) did not provide conflicts of interest details the funding details.…”

Are Mechanical Vibrations an Effective Alternative to Accelerate Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Humans? A Systematic Review

“…Abbreviations: EG, experimental group; CG, control group; M, male; F, female; EG 2 , experimental group aligner substitution 7 days; EG 3 , changed aligners every 7 days, no vibration treatment, EG 4 , experimental group aligner substitution 5 days; EG 5 , changed aligners every 5 days, no vibration treatment.…”

“…Therefore, a maximum biological response with minimal side-effects in a short time is an ideal objective; for this purpose, there are currently some available methods and techniques. These methods and techniques are divided into surgical: corticotomies and micro-osseoperforations; and those of a physical, biological, or mechanical environment: photobiomodulation, electromagnetic pulses, pharmacotherapy, and, of particular interest for this work, mechanical vibrations; nonetheless, in the case of the last alternative, the research is still unfinished or debatable [2][3][4][5][6][7].…”