Objective: To compare the treatment effects of mini-implants as anchor units with conventional methods of anchorage reinforcement in maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion patients in terms of skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes. Materials and Methods: We searched the databases of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, OVIDSP, CBM, VIP, WanFang Data, and CNKI covering December 1966 to March 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials that compared the treatment effects of miniimplants with conventional anchorage reinforcement in maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion patients. Literature filtering, data extraction, and methodological quality evaluation were finished independently by two researchers and disagreements were solved by discussion. Meta-analysis was performed when possible; otherwise descriptive assessment was done. Results: Through a predefined search strategy, we finally included 14 eligible studies. Eight outcomes were evaluated in this study: maxillary incisor retraction, maxillary molar movement, U1-SN, SNA, SN-MP, UL-E Plane, NLA and G-Sn-Pg. Conclusions: Mini-implant anchorage was more effective in retracting the anterior teeth, produced less anchorage loss, and had a greater effect on SN-MP for the high-angle patients than did traditional anchorage. Both mini-implants and traditional anchorage underwent decreases in on U1-SN and SNA. More qualified RCTs are required to make reliable recommendations about the anchorage capacity of mini-implant and traditional anchorage in patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion, especially on the UL-E plane, NLA, and G-Sn-Pg. (Angle Orthod. 2017;87:320-327)

No abstract

Background: To compare the degree of external apical root resorption (EARR) in patients using self-ligating brackets with conventional brackets in a long run. Methods: Electronic search was made in databases including PubMed, OVID, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, FMRS, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data until November 2019 to retrievalled randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials that compared the EARR between patients using self-ligating or conventional brackets. What’s more, manual search was made in NLM, SIGLE, Campbell library, WHOLIS, Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine and the Journal of Orthodontics. Literature filtering, data extraction and methodological quality evaluation were finished independently by two researchers and disagreements were solved by a third reviewer. Original outcome data, if possible, were subjected to statistical pooling by Review Manager 5.3 for Meta analysis.Results: Through a predefined search strategy, ten studies were included in the systematic review and nine eligible studies were pooled in meta-analysis. There was a significant difference between self-ligating and conventional brackets in terms of the value of EARR in maxillary central incisors (P=0.01; SMD: -0.42mm; 95%CI: -0.76, -0.09) in a long run. No significant difference in maxillary lateral incisors (P=0.07; SMD: -0.17; 95%CI: −0.35, 0.01), mandibular central incisors (P=0.69; SMD: 0.04; 95%CI: −0.17, 0.26) and mandibular lateral incisors (P=0.38; SMD: −0.10; 95%CI: −0.32, 0.12).Conclusions: Self-ligating brackets have a long-term effect in protecting maxillary central incisors from the EARR compared to conventional brackets. However, self-ligating brackets were not superior to conventional brackets in reducing the EARR of maxillary lateral incisors, mandible central incisors and mandible lateral incisors.