Compared the Effects of Skeletal Anchored Maxillary Protraction Vs Dental Anchored Maxillary Protraction in Children With Class Iii Malocclusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis



Chamani A¹ ; Doroudgar P² ; Badri K³
Source: International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research Published:2020

Abstract

Background and aim: The aim of this systematic review and Meta-analysis was compared the effects of skeletal anchored maxillary protraction vs dental anchored maxillary protraction in children class III malocclusion. Method: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ISI, google scholar were used as electronic databases to perform a systematic literature between 2010 to April 2020. Endnote x8 software used for electronic title management. The present systematic review was performed based on the main consideration of PRISMA Statement–Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis and by the PICO strategy. Result: A total of 218 potentially relevant titles and abstracts were found during the electronic and manual search. Finally, a total of five publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria required for this systematic review. Mean difference in SNB was (MD, 2.29(°) 95% CI 1.84(°)-2.74(°). P= 0.00) and heterogeneity found (I2 = 99.87%; P =0.00). Mean difference in ANB was (MD, 1.56(°) 95% CI 1.05(°)-2.07(°). P= 0.00) and heterogeneity found (I2 = 92.64%; P =0.00) Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed in comparison between SAMP versus DAMP treatment, SAMP in maxillary protraction were more prominent compared to DAMP. © 2020, Advanced Scientific Research. All rights reserved.