Effectiveness of TAD-anchored maxillary protraction in late mixed dentition

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of temporary anchorage device (TAD)-anchored maxillary protraction (MP) in terms of the skeletal and dentoalveolar changes and to compare it with traditional tooth-anchored MP. Materials and Methods: A computerized literature search for relative randomized controlled trials and prospective controlled trials was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CNKI, and Google Scholar, complemented with manual search. Data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was followed when possible; otherwise, description was done. Results: Forty articles were found, among which four trials were qualified for meta-analysis. The results showed that there was significant difference between TAD-anchored MP and untreated control in terms of maxillary advancement (weighted mean differences (WMD) 3.08 mm; 95% CI: 1.61 to approximately 4.56; P , .0001), but there were no consistent points in terms of mandibular rotation. Also, there were significant differences between both treatment patterns regarding maxillary advancement (WMD 1.41 mm; 95% CI: 0.47 to approximately 2.35; P 5 .003), mandibular rotation (WMD 21.39u, 95% CI: 22.47 to approximately 20.31; P 5 .01), proclination of maxillary incisors (WMD 22.29u; 95% CI: 24.41 to approximately 20.17; P 5 .03), and extrusion of maxillary molars (WMD 21.68 mm; 95% CI: 22.51 to approximately 20.85; P , .0001). Conclusions: According to the present results, TAD-anchored MP might have a greater maxillary advancement effect and might reduce skeletal and dental side effects, compared with toothanchored MP.

A novel method for treatment of Class III malocclusion in growing patients

“…The use of surgical plates has eliminated the need for the cumbersome part-time extra-oral headgear appliance, and the protraction is maintained full-time. A recent systematic review suggested that maxillary protraction anchored with a bone-anchorage device induces more maxillary advancement with minimal dental side effects when compared with tooth-anchored appliances [ 17 ]. Although efficient protraction of the maxilla has been confirmed following the use of surgical plates coupled with intermaxillary Class III elastics, their insertion is undertaken under general anesthesia, unlike temporary anchorage devices (TADs), which are usually placed under local anesthesia [ 18 ].…”

Implants for orthodontic anchorage

“…AMSTAR ratings for the reviews are summarized in Table 2 . [2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26] All 23 reviews were classified as high, medium, or low quality based on 11 domains. Following our previous classification criteria, a grade of 0 to 3 was considered low quality, 4 to 7 was considered medium quality, and 8 to 11 was considered high quality.…”

Effectiveness of interceptive treatment of class III malocclusions with skeletal anchorage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…This would indicate that there is no clear evidence that skeletal anchorage gives better results than traditional treatments. However, the systematic reviews by Feng et al [28] and Jamilian et al [29] found that maxillary protraction with skeletal anchorage has a greater maxillary advancement effect and seems to reduce some side effects such as mandibular rotation, extrusion of the lower molars or proclination of the upper incisors. The lower incidence of adverse effects is found again in the systematic review by Sahin et al [30], who also concluded that skeletal effects are achieved more rapidly with this type of anchorage.…”