The Effectiveness of Conventional and Accelerated Methods of Orthodontic Traction and Alignment of Palatally Impacted Canines in Terms of Treatment Time, Velocity of Tooth Movement, Periodontal, and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Abstract

The objective of the current review was to evaluate the effectiveness of traditional and accelerated methods of palatally impacted canine's (PIC) traction in terms of treatment duration, velocity, periodontal, and patient-reported variables. An electronic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) published between January 1990 and October 2021 was conducted in nine databases. Five major orthodontic journals were hand searched for additional studies. The participants were patients with unilateral or bilateral PICs who received conventional or accelerated orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Cochrane's risk of bias tool (RoB 2 tool) for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for CCTs were used to assess the risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Nine articles (eight RCTs and one CCT) were included in this review (371 patients). There was no clarity in most studies about the possible effect of the mechanical traction method on treatment outcomes. The treatment duration decreased (about three to six months) when the open surgical method was used with traditional techniques and the traction velocity increased significantly (about 1-1.5 mm/month) when acceleration methods were used. No significant differences were found between the conventional intervention groups, as well as between the traditional and accelerated groups, in terms of most periodontal variables (p > 0.005). No significant differences were found in the pain levels associated with traditional PICs' traction when comparing different exposure methods in the short-term follow-up (1-10 days), while contradictory results were found in the pain incidence between these methods. The relationship between the pain/discomfort levels and the type of mechanical traction method was not evaluated. According to the GRADE, the quality of evidence supporting these findings ranged from low to very low. The combination of the open surgical technique with various designs of either superelastic wires or elastic traction means can lead to a reduction in the orthodontic treatment duration of PICs. The use of direct anchorage by miniscrews to move the PICs away from the adjacent teeth roots can lead to a reduction in root resorption and shorten the treatment duration. The evidence supporting these findings ranged from low to very low. The use of different types of mechanical means for conventional PICs' traction, with the use of open or closed traction techniques, does not lead to significant differences in periodontal outcomes between intervention groups. Contradictory results exist regarding the severity of the perceived pain in relation to the surgical exposure type, and the relationship between this variable and the mechanical traction method is still unclear. The use of accelerated methods for PICs' traction can lead to an increase in the velocity of traction movement with no significant differences in periodontal outcomes between accelerated and conventional methods. The evidence supporting these findings ranged from low to very low. More high-quality randomized CCTs are needed to establish good evidence in this field. The protocol of this systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42021274476) during the first stages of this review.

Keywords: acceleration of tooth movement; corticotomy; impacted canine traction; orthodontic traction; pain and discomfort; palatally impacted canine; periodontal status; piezosurgery; root resorption; velocity of tooth movement.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Copyright © 2022, Mousa et al.

Figures

Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram

Figure 2. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study

Figure 3. The overall risk of bias for each domain