Methods : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [3]
Inclusion of less than five patients
Lack of clinical data on anchorage loss
Measurement of anchorage loss not by superimposition of lateral cephalograms or superimposition of study casts
Previous orthodontic treatment
Treatment in control group not specified
Inclusion of diseased patients, e.g., patients with systemic diseases, periodontal disease, and syndromes
Other treatment than en masse retraction and mini implants
Other sources of skeletal anchorage than orthodontic mini implants or micro implants
At least two review authors examined the titles and abstracts of the identified studies and reports independently. Reports which were clearly not relevant were excluded, whereas full-text documents were retrieved for all potentially relevant studies and eligibility was assessed according for the criteria defined in advance. Disagreements were resolved by open discussion occasionally arbitrated by an independent assessor (D.D.). A data extraction template was generated including the items’ study design, population, type of implants, number of implants, location of the implants, time points of observation, treatment duration, control intervention, measurement method, and primary and secondary outcomes as well as risk of bias (Additional file 1). Data extraction was performed independently by at least two review authors.
For qualitative and quantitative data analysis, the horizontal and vertical anchorage loss values associated with direct and indirect anchorage against a control measure were defined as primary outcomes. For qualitative data analysis, transversal anchorage loss, treatment duration, and implant failures with direct and indirect anchorage were defined as secondary outcomes.
A quality assessment of all selected full-text articles was performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias (low, high, unclear) including the following domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias.
Quality assessment was performed in two different phases. In the first phase, quality assessment was conducted independently by at least two authors (A.P., C.B., K.B.) based on the published full-text articles. In the second phase, disagreements were resolved by discussion. A risk of bias table was completed for each included study.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Review : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Methods : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [1]
- Methods : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]
- Methods : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [3]
- Methods : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [4]
- Results : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [1]
- Results : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]
- Results : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [3]
- Results : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [4]
- Results : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [5]
- Discussion : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [1]
- Discussion : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]
- Conclusions : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- References : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [1]
- References : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]
- References : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [3]
- References : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [4]
- References : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [5]
- References : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
- Acknowledgements : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Author information : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [1]
- Author information : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]
- Ethics declarations : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Additional file : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Rights and permissions : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- About this article : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Table 1 List of excluded studies (with reason) (Of: Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant)
- Table 2 Characteristics of the included studies (TPA transpalatal arch, RCT randomized controlled clinical trial, CCT controlled clinical trial) (Of: Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant)
- Table 3 Risk of bias judgment according to the Cochrane Collaboration (Of: Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant)
- Fig. 1. PRISMA study flow diagram : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant
- Fig. 2. Graphic visualization of the risk of bias judgements : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant
- Fig. 3. Forest plot for anchorage loss in the horizontal dimension : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant
- Fig. 4. Forest plot for anchorage loss in the vertical dimension : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant
- Fig. 5. Funnel plot for anchorage loss in the horizontal dimension (MD mean difference, SE standard error) : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant
- Fig. 6. Funnel plot for anchorage loss in the vertical dimension (MD mean difference, SE standard error) : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant