Top

BMC Oral Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Are there differences in treatment effects between labial and lingual fixed orthodontic appliances? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Fadi Ata-Ali, Teresa Cobo, Felix De Carlos, Juan Cobo, Javier Ata-Ali

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2017

Abstract

Background

An evaluation is made of possible differences in treatment effects between labial and lingual fixed appliances.

Methods

A comprehensive search was made of the PubMed-Medline, Cochrane Library and LILACS databases, with an additional manual search covering the period up until April 2017. There were no restrictions in terms of year of publication or language. Agreement between the authors was quantified by the Cohen kappa statistic. A random-effect model was applied to calculate weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 249 patients corresponding to four eligible studies were included in the systematic review. Among the six angles and distances entered in the meta-analysis, a tendency was observed in lingual appliances to increase the interincisal angle (95% CI −0.80-8.99; p = 0.101) and reduce the angle between the major axis of upper central incisor and the sellar-nasion plane - though statistical significance was not reached (95% CI −5.75-0.32; p = 0.079).

Conclusion

The results obtained indicate that treatment with lingual appliances favors incisor tipping by exerting lingual crown torque, but there are no differences in cephalometric values between labial and lingual fixed appliances. Because of the small number of included studies, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution. Future research should focus on the generation of a consensus document allowing selection of the type of orthodontic approach not only conditioned to the esthetic requirements of the patient but also considering the characteristics of the malocclusion. On the other hand, standardized international guidelines are lacking; the measurements of angles and distances therefore have to be unified with a view to future investigations.

Fujita K. New orthodontic treatment with lingual bracket mushroom arch wire appliance. Am J Orthod. 1979;76:657–75.CrossRefPubMed

Fritz U, Diedrich P, Wiechmann D. Lingual technique--patients’ characteristics, motivation and acceptance. Interpretation of a retrospective survey. J Orofac Orthop. 2002;63:227–33.CrossRefPubMed

Caniklioglu C, Oztürk Y. Patient discomfort: a comparison between lingual and labial fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:86–91.PubMed

van der Veen MH, Attin R, Schwestka-Polly R, Wiechmann D. Caries outcomes after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances: do lingual brackets make a difference? Eur J Oral Sci. 2010;118:298–303.CrossRefPubMed

Pittayapat P, Limchaichana-Bolstad N, Willems G, Jacobs R. Three-dimensional cephalometric analysis in orthodontics: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2014;17:69–91.CrossRefPubMed

Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31:241–6.CrossRefPubMed

Soldanova M, Leseticky O, Komarkova L, Dostalova T, Smutny V, Spidlen M. Effectiveness of treatment of adult patients with the straightwire technique and the lingual two-dimensional appliance. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:674–80.CrossRefPubMed

Deguchi T, Terao F, Aonuma T, Kataoka T, Sugawara Y, Yamashiro T, et al. Outcome assessment of lingual and labial appliances compared with cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and objective grading system in angle class II extraction cases. Angle Orthod. 2015;85:400–7.CrossRefPubMed

Gorman JC, Smith RJ. Comparison of treatment effects with labial and lingual fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1991;99:202–9.CrossRef

10.

Baysal A, Uysal T. Dentoskeletal effects of twin block and Herbst appliances in patients with class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36:164–72.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Silvestrini-Biavati A, Alberti G, Silvestrini Biavati F, Signori A, Castaldo A, Migliorati M. Early functional treatment in class II division 1 subjects with mandibular retrognathia using Fränkel II appliance. A prospective controlled study. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2012;13:301–6.PubMed

12.

Aldrees AM. Lateral cephalometric norms for Saudi adults: a meta-analysis. Saudi Dent J. 2011;23:3–7.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Proffit WR, Fields HW. Contemporary orthodontics. 3rd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2000.

14.

Scuzzo G, Takemoto K. Invisible orthodontics: current concepts and solutions in lingual orthodontic. Berlin: Quintessenz GmbH; 2003.

15.

Fujita K. Multilingual-bracket and mushroom arch wire technique. A clinical report. Am J Orthod. 1982;82:120–40.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kurz C, Gorman JC. Lingual orthodontics: a status report. Part 7A. Case reports-- nonextraction, consolidation. J Clin Orthod. 1983;17:310–21.PubMed

17.

Smith JR. Lingual orthodontics: a status report. Part 7B. Case reports--extraction. J Clin Orthod. 1983;17:464–73.PubMed

18.

Gimenez CM, Thurler RB, Cotrin-Ferreira A, Macedo A, Bertoz FA. Evaluation of cephalometric alterations noted during the lingual orthodontic treatment: prospective study. Ortho Sci Orthod Sci Pract. 2010;3:310–4.

19.

Liang W, Rong Q, Lin J, Xu B. Torque control of the maxillary incisors in lingual and labial orthodontics: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;135:316–22.CrossRef

20.

Lombardo L, Scuzzo G, Arreghini A, Gorgun O, Ortan YO, Siciliani G. 3D FEM comparison of lingual and labial orthodontics in en masse retraction. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Lombardo L, Wierusz W, Toscano D, Lapenta R, Kaplan A, Siciliani G. Frictional resistance exerted by different lingual and labial brackets: an in vitro study. Prog Orthod. 2013;14:37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Sifakakis I, Pandis N, Makou M, Eliades T, Katsaros C, Bourauel C. A comparative assessment of torque generated by lingual and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35:375–80.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hong RK, Heo JM, Ha YK. Lever-arm and mini-implant system for anterior torque control during retraction in lingual orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:129–41.PubMed

24.

George RD, Hirani S. Fully-customized lingual appliances: how lingual orthodontics became a viable treatment option. J Orthod. 2013;40:S8–13.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Alexander CM, Alexander RG, Gorman JC, Hilgers JJ, Kurz C, Scholz RP, Smith JR. Lingual orthodontics. A status report. J Clin Orthod. 1982;16:255–62.PubMed

26.

Creekmore TD. Precision placement of lingual and labial brackets. J Am Ling Orthod Assoc. 1988;1:6–8.

27.

Papageorgiou SN, Gölz L, Jäger A, Eliades T, Bourauel C. Lingual vs. labial fixed orthodontic appliances: systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effects. Eur J Oral Sci. 2016;124:105–18.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Ata-Ali F, Ata-Ali J, Ferrer-Molina M, Cobo T, De Carlos F, Cobo J. Adverse effects of lingual and buccal orthodontic techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016;149:820–9.CrossRef

29.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9. W64CrossRefPubMed

30.

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 20 Dec 2014.

31.

Wang X, Wang R, Zhang DL. Evaluation on effectiveness of individual lingual orthodontics and labial straight wire orthodontics by X-ray cephalometrics. J Jilin Univ Med Ed. 2014;40:861.

32.

Wells G, Shea B, O’connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Health Research Institute. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 20 Dec 2014.

33.

DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.CrossRefPubMed

34.

The R Project for Statistical Computing. (Home page on the Internet). Available from: http://www.r-project.org (Accessed 11 Sept 2015).

35.

Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088–101.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Nelson B, Hansen K, Hägg U. Overjet reduction and molar correction in fixed appliance treatment of class II, division 1, malocclusions: sagittal and vertical components. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1999;115:13–23.CrossRef

38.

Reddy P, Kharbanda OP, Duggal R, Parkash H. Skeletal and dental changes with nonextraction Begg mechanotherapy in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;118:641–8.CrossRef

39.

Aras A, Cinsar A, Bulut H. The effect of zigzag elastics in the treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion subjects with hypo- and hyperdivergent growth patterns. A pilot study. Eur J Orthod. 2001;23:393–402.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Fulmer DT, Kuftinec MM. Cephalometric appraisal of patients treated with fixed lingual orthodontic appliances: historic review and analysis of cases. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1989;95:514–20.CrossRef

41.

Shaw A. Dimensional changes in height of labial alveolar bone of proclined lower incisor after lingual positioning by orthodontic treatment: a cephalometric study on adult Bengali population. Contemp Clin Dent. 2015;6:31–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Smith JR, Gorman JC, Kurz C, Dunn RM. Keys to success in lingual therapy. Part 2. J Clin Orthod. 1986;20:330–40.PubMed

43.

Geron S, Romano R, Brosh T. Vertical forces in labial and lingual orthodontics applied on maxillary incisors--a theoretical approach. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:195–201.PubMed

44.

Bock NC, Ruf S, Wiechmann D, Jilek T. Dentoskeletal effects during Herbst-multibracket appliance treatment: a comparison of lingual and labial approaches. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38:470–7.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Claudino D, Traebert J. Malocclusion, dental aesthetic self-perception and quality of life in a 18 to 21 year-old population: a cross section study. BMC Oral Health. 2013;13:3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1993;103:299–312.CrossRef

47.

Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning--part II. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1993;103:395–411.CrossRef

Title: Are there differences in treatment effects between labial and lingual fixed orthodontic appliances? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Fadi Ata-Ali
Teresa Cobo
Felix De Carlos
Juan Cobo
Javier Ata-Ali
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0424-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Are there differences in treatment effects between labial and lingual fixed orthodontic appliances? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Use of oral health care services in Finnish adults – results from the cross-sectional Health 2000 and 2011 Surveys

In vitro effects of hyaluronic acid on human periodontal ligament cells

Association among oral symptoms, oral health-related quality of life, and health-related quality of life in a sample of adults living with HIV/AIDS in Malaysia

A comparison of the shaping ability of three nickel-titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomography study via a contrast radiopaque technique in vitro

Temporal relationship between dysthymia and temporomandibular disorder: a population-based matched case-control study in Taiwan

The Candida species that are important for the development of atrophic glossitis in xerostomia patients