Scholarlink

Background <p>To determine and compare arch perimeter changes obtained with and between passive self-ligating bracket systems and conventional bracket systems.</p> Methods <p>A thorough search in six databases up to January 11th, 2025 was done with no restriction of date. Prospective and retrospective studies that evaluated the arch perimeter changes with and between passive self-ligating (PSL) and conventional brackets. Quality assessment was done using the ROB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. A standard random-effects model was used in this review for analysis.</p> Results <p>Search identified twelve studies on arch perimeter changes with and between passive self-ligating (PSL) and conventional brackets. Eight studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis indicated that arch perimeter increase was achieved with both conventional and passive self-ligating systems with no significant difference between the two. Meta-analysis indicates that there was an arch perimeter increase of 2.57&#xa0;mm (0.29, 4.85) in the maxilla and 1.57&#xa0;mm (-0.27, 3.41) in the mandible with passive self-ligation. However, when compared with the conventional system, the difference in arch perimeter gain was 0.09&#xa0;mm (mean − 1.69, SD -1.88) in the maxillary arch and − 0.5&#xa0;mm (-3.47, 2.43) in the mandibular arch. The difference was not significant.</p> Conclusion <p>Both conventional and self-ligation systems increased arch perimeter. However, the arch perimeter changes between the two bracket systems were not clinically or statistically significant. The hypothesis that self-ligating systems have a greater increase in arch perimeter is not based on evidence.</p> Clinical trial number <p>Not applicable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Arch perimeter changes with passive self-ligating bracket system: a systematic review and meta analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月28日

查看全文
  • Nivedha Ramachandran,
  • Keerthi Venkatesan,
  • Vignesh Kailasam,
  • Sridevi Padmanabhan

摘要

Background

To determine and compare arch perimeter changes obtained with and between passive self-ligating bracket systems and conventional bracket systems.

Methods

A thorough search in six databases up to January 11th, 2025 was done with no restriction of date. Prospective and retrospective studies that evaluated the arch perimeter changes with and between passive self-ligating (PSL) and conventional brackets. Quality assessment was done using the ROB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. A standard random-effects model was used in this review for analysis.

Results

Search identified twelve studies on arch perimeter changes with and between passive self-ligating (PSL) and conventional brackets. Eight studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis indicated that arch perimeter increase was achieved with both conventional and passive self-ligating systems with no significant difference between the two. Meta-analysis indicates that there was an arch perimeter increase of 2.57 mm (0.29, 4.85) in the maxilla and 1.57 mm (-0.27, 3.41) in the mandible with passive self-ligation. However, when compared with the conventional system, the difference in arch perimeter gain was 0.09 mm (mean − 1.69, SD -1.88) in the maxillary arch and − 0.5 mm (-3.47, 2.43) in the mandibular arch. The difference was not significant.

Conclusion

Both conventional and self-ligation systems increased arch perimeter. However, the arch perimeter changes between the two bracket systems were not clinically or statistically significant. The hypothesis that self-ligating systems have a greater increase in arch perimeter is not based on evidence.

Clinical trial number

Not applicable.