A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The effectiveness of adjuncts or alternatives to the use of orthodontic retainers in preserving posttreatment outcomes: A systematic review. | LitMetric

The effectiveness of adjuncts or alternatives to the use of orthodontic retainers in preserving posttreatment outcomes: A systematic review.

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop

Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Division of Public and Child Dental Health, Dublin Dental School and Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Published: January 2023

Introduction: The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of adjuncts or alternatives to mechanical retention in preserving postorthodontic treatment outcomes.

Methods: Electronic databases, unpublished literature, and ongoing trials were searched until July 22, 2022 (PROSPERO CRD42021291165). Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of adjuncts and alternatives to conventional orthodontic retainers were included. Stability, periodontal effects, cost-effectiveness, and patient-reported outcomes were to be evaluated. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Risk of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) were used for risk of bias assessment. The certainty of the evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Exploratory sensitivity analysis was undertaken to calculate the weighted treatment effects of the intervention.

Results: A total of 5128 records were screened. Seven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 5 were randomized controlled trials. Five trials were judged to be at high risk of bias, with 2 studies of unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity between the limited number of included studies precluded the conduct of meta-analysis. Circumferential supracrestal fibrotomy resulted in less increase in the mandibular Little's Irregularity Index (mean difference, -2.30 mm; 95% confidence interval, -2.86 to -1.74). The overall level of evidence was of very low quality.

Conclusions: Adjuncts and alternatives to mechanical retention have promise, but based on the existing evidence, the reliance on mechanical retention cannot be reduced. There is weak evidence supporting circumferential supracrestal fibrotomy to improve stability outcomes. Further high-quality prospective research focusing on the predictability and acceptability of these approaches is needed.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.08.022DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

risk bias
20
adjuncts alternatives
16
mechanical retention
12
orthodontic retainers
8
efficacy adjuncts
8
alternatives mechanical
8
controlled trials
8
circumferential supracrestal
8
supracrestal fibrotomy
8
trials
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!