The objective of this systematic review was to estimate the efficacy of protraction facemask on the correction of Class III malocclusion in the short term. A systematic review of articles was performed using different electronic databases (PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, LILACS, and Google Scholar). Search terms comprised 'orthopedic treatment' and 'Class III malocclusion'. The selection criteria were set in order to include in this review only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) performed treating with facemask Class III growing patients. Studies' selection, data extraction, and risk of bias's assessment were executed independently by two authors using pre-defined data forms. All pooled analyses of data were based on random effects models. A pre-specified subgroup analysis was planned to evaluate the effect of preliminary rapid palatal expansion on facemask efficacy. Three RCTs met our inclusion criteria. In total, data from 155 patients (92 treated and 63 controls) were collected. The treated group showed the following significant changes: ANB° +3.66° [95%CI (2.58, 4.74)]; SNA° +2.10 [95%CI (1.14, 3.06)]; SNB° -1.54 [95%CI (-2.13, -0.95)]; SN-palatal plane -0.82° [95%CI (-1.62, -0.02)]; and SN-mandibular plane +1.51 [95%CI (0.61, 2.41)]. Heterogeneity varied from low to moderate (mean I(2) value: 41.4 ± 20.8). Facemask is effective correcting Class III malocclusion in the short term. The skeletal modifications induced by facemask are forward displacement of maxilla, backward displacement of mandible, clockwise rotation of the mandibular plane, and counterclockwise rotation of the maxillary plane.

No abstract

This systematic review aims to highlight the differences between different clear aligner therapies that differ in the presence of attachments or in attachment configuration. Eight electronic databases were searched up to March 2020. Two authors independently proceeded to study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The analysis of the results was carried out examining six groups of movements (mesio-distal tipping/bodily movement; anterior bucco-lingual tipping/root torque; posterior bucco-lingual tipping/expansion; intrusion; extrusion; rotation). Five clinical trials were selected and all of them showed a medium risk of bias. Literature showed that attachments mostly increase the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with clear aligners, improving anterior root torque, rotation, and mesio-distal (M-D) movement; they are also important to increase posterior anchorage. However, some articles showed contradictory or not statistically significant results. Attachments also seem to improve intrusion, but the evidence about this movement, as well as extrusion, is lacking. No studies evaluated posterior bucco-lingual tipping/expansion. Further clinical trials are strongly suggested to clarify the influence of attachments and their number, size, shape, and position on each orthodontic movement.

No abstract

No abstract