Meta-analysis Of The Effect Of Microimplant Anchorage And Conventional Anchorage In Class Ⅱ Malocclusion

Objectives:In this study,the clinical effect of microimplant anchorage and traditional anchorage in patients with class Ⅱ malocclusion was evaluated by using Meta-analysis.Systematic evaluation of the treatment of patients with class Ⅱ malocclusion using microimplant anchorage and conventional anchorage.Formulating the basis for treating Ann class Ⅱ malocclusion is the goal.Method:Computer search from the establishment of the database was published in cn KI,Wanfang Medical Network,Pubmed,Embase,Web of science database in October 2022,and manually search the references of the included literature as supplements.Data extraction and literature quality evaluation of the included literature were conducted by two independent fellows in strict accordance with the established inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria.Any differences were discussed and negotiated with the third researcher.Data collected in the literature were selected using Stata SE to select relative hazards(Risk Ratio,RR)and the mean difference(Mean Difference,MD)as an effect size index for microimplant anchorage and conventional anchorage in patients with the position of the skull(SNA),the position of the skull(SNB),the position between the nose(NLA),the upper lip and the nasal base,and the inclination of the upper central incisor(U1-SN).The advantages and disadvantages of the two branches were also described and evaluated.Result:Through computer search and manual search,15 articles were finally included in this study,with a total of 775 patients,including 386 patients with microimplants and 389 patients with conventional implants.The meta-analysis showed that in the interposition relationship(ANB)between the upper and lower mandibular bones,the effect of microimplant anchorage and ANB was SMD(-0.33,-0.02),considering the effect of microimplant anchorage and conventional anchorage treatment of ANB.In nasolabial angle(NLA),the effect of NLA was SMD = 0.58,0.95CI(0.46,0.30),considering the effect of NLA.In terms of the anterior-posterior position(SNA)of the maxillary base,the effect of M.SNA and CI was SMD =-0.17-0.17(-0.40,0.07),indicating no statistical difference between the effect of microimplant anchorage and SNA.In terms of the anterior and posterior position relationship(SNB)of the mandibular base phase on the skull,the effect of SNB was SMD =-0.06,95%CI =-0.06(-0.21,0.08),and there was no statistical difference between the effect of microimplant anchorage and SNB.In the inclination of maxillary central incisors(U1-SN),there was no statistical difference between microimplants and conventional anchorage therapy(SMD =-0.55,95%CI: [-0.85,-0.26] I2=24.8%,P=0.248)Conclusion:1.In the treatment of class Ⅱ malocclusion,the maxillary penetration of the internal anterior teeth was changed,and the effect of microimplants was more obvious than the traditional anchorage.2.Although micro implant anchorage can make the upper and lower incisor internal amount is large,but the nasolabial Angle change is small,this study only 5 articles,and the literature on the influence of the patient lip soft tissue on treatment,in the micro implant branch and the branch and traditional changes still need more high quality related research to provide further evidence.3.There was no significant difference in SNA and SNB before and after Ann class Ⅱ malocclusion.