Influence of conventional and skeletal anchorage system supported fixed functional appliance on maxillo-mandibular complex and temporomandibular joint: A preliminary comparative cone beam computed tomography study

Gandedkar, Narayan H.; Shrikantaiah, Shashwath; Patil, Anand; Baseer, Mohammed Abdul; Chng, Chai Kiat; Ganeshkar, Sanjay V; Kambalyal, Prabhuraj

doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2019.03.008

Cited by 15 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The details of each study are presented in Table 2. All six articles [8][9][10][11][12][13] were high quality. Risk of bias is presented in Table 3.…”

Section: Description Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The remaining eight articles were further assessed for eligibility, and six studies (three RCTs and three prospective CCTs) were finally included in this systematic review. [8][9][10][11][12][13] The procedures of electronic searching and selection are shown in Figure 1. Sample sizes ranged from 8 to 16 in different groups, with ages between 12 and 14 years old.…”

Section: Description Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies 8,10-13 investigated Co-Po, which had a pooled MD of 1.63 mm (95% CI: 0.46, 2.80). Six studies [8][9][10][11][12][13] investigated SN-MP, which had a pooled MD of 0.758 (95% CI: 0.28, 1.23).…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to the small sample size in Gandedkar et al, 11 sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding this study from the meta-analysis. Stable results were found except for Co-Po (MD ¼ 1.34; 95% CI: -0.36~3.04).…”

Section: Sensitivity Analysis and Subgroup Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 To minimize the adverse effects of Forsus, a combination of Forsus and temporary anchorage devices (TADs) has been claimed to preserve dental anchorage and avoid adverse dental effects. [8][9][10][11][12] However, controversy arose regarding whether Forsus with and without skeletal anchorage produced similar treatment results. 9,13 These conflicting results are likely attributed to different types of skeletal anchorage and different study designs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A comparison of the effects of Forsus appliances with and without temporary anchorage devices for skeletal Class II malocclusion:

Liu¹,

Zhan²,

Zhou³

et al. 2020

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare the effects of Forsus appliances with and without temporary anchorage devices (TADs) for patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion. Materials and Methods Through a predefined search strategy, electronic searching was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and SIGLE with no language restrictions. Eligible study selection, data extraction, and evaluation of risk of bias (Cochrane Collaboration tool) were conducted by two authors independently and in duplicate. Any disagreement was solved by discussion or judged by a third reviewer. Statistical pooling, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and assessment of small-study effects were conducted by using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis and Stata 12.0. Heterogeneity was analyzed for different types of study designs, TADs, and radiographic examinations. Results Electronic search yielded a total of 256 studies after removing duplicates. Among them, six studies were finally included. All articles were of high quality. The pooled mean differences were –0.27 (95% confidence interval [CI]: –0.59, 0.05) for SNA, 0.58 (95% CI: –0.07, 1.23) for SNB, –0.86 (95% CI: –1.74, –0.03) for ANB, 1.63 (95% CI: 0.46, 2.80) for Co-Po, 0.75 (95% CI: 0.28, 1.23) for SN-MP, –7.56 (95% CI: –11.37, –3.76) for L1-MP, 0.47 (95% CI: –0.98, 1.91) for overjet, 0.39 (95% CI: –0.57, 1.35) for overbite, –1.84 (95% CI: −5.15, 1.47) for SN-OP, and 4.97 (95% CI: –1.22, 11.17) for nasolabial angle. Conclusions TADs (especially miniplates) were able to eliminate dental adverse effects of Forsus appliances for correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion.

show abstract

“…The details of each study are presented in Table 2. All six articles [8][9][10][11][12][13] were high quality. Risk of bias is presented in Table 3.…”

Section: Description Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 96%