Table 2 Information about data items
Authors | Type of study | No. patient | Age | Sex | Surgery approach | Type of anchorage | Force application system | Statistical analysis | Timing of evaluation of the results | Periodontal results | Receiving funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parkin et al. [18] | RCT | 62. (group 1: 33 canines; group 2: 29 canines) | Group 1: 14.2 yrs; group 2: 14 yrs | Group 1: 11 M and 22 F. group 2: 8 M and 21 F | Group 1: OT group 2: CT | Dental: fixed appliance | Twin-wire technique or an elastic chain | t test, chi-square test, McNemar test, Wilcoxon signed rank test | 3 months after fixed appliances removal | CAL, REC and alveolar bone level was statistically relevant. CL was not statistically relevant | Yes |
Smailiene et al. [19] | Q-RCT | 43. (group 1: 22; group 2: 21) (control group: contralateral teeth) | Group 1: 18.6 ± 3.45 yrs; group 2: 19.7 ± 4.37 yrs | 8 M and 35 F | Group 1: OT and free eruption. group 2: CT | Dental: fixed appliance with rectangular stabilization archwire | Group 2: ballista loop on the additional stainless steel archwire | Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Student’s t-test, non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-test, Student’s (t) paired test, non-parametric Wilcoxon, Pearson’s test, Spearman’s test, chi-square test | 4.19 ± 1.44 months (3–6 months) after fixed appliance removal | PD and Bone support were statistically relevant. REC and KT did not differ significantly | NS |
Hansson and Rindler [27] | uNRS | 42. (control group: contralateral teeth) | 14–42 yrs | 15 M and 27F | 11 Canines: CT; 31 Canines: OT | Dental: lingual arch with occlusal stay on the adjacent premolar | Spring attached either to the first molar band or to the lingual arch | Student-t test. Wilcoxon test, Dahlberg's formula | 1 to 18 yrs (mean 12.3 yrs) post-treatment | PI mesial and palatal to the canine was higher compared to the control group. PD mesial to the canine was higher compared to the control group. GI: no difference between treated and control group. Bone level distal to the canine was lower compared to the control group | Yes |
Szarmach et al. [21] | Prospective | 24. (Control group: contralateral teeth) | 18.4 ± 3.66 yrs | 5 M and 19 F | – | Dental: fixed appliance with rectangular steel arch | Accessory steel arch with a “ballista” loop | Student t-test, non-parametric Wilcoxon test and Pearson correlation coefficient | After canine alignment | PD, CAL: statistically significant. PI: statistically insignificant | NS |
Zafarmand and Gholami [20] | prospective | 20. (control group: contralateral teeth) | 16.7 ± 1.9 yrs | 10 M and 10 F | OT (modified window technique) | Dental: fixed appliance (archwire) | Elastic thread | Mann–Whitney U test | 6 months after therapy | BOP was found in 8 patients, CL was greater in the study group than in the control group, KT were lower in the study group, CAL were lower in the study group. Range of bone level were not statistically significant | NS |
Mummolo et al. [10] | prospective | 19. (9 palatal and 10 buccal) | 19.44 ± 2.4 yrs (palatal group); 18.5 ± 1.96 yrs (buccal group) | 5 M and 5 F (buccal) e 4 M e 5 F (palatal) | OT (buccal group: apically repositioned full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap. Palatal group: operculectomy) | Dental: fixed appliance | Elastic thread | Mann–Whitney U test, test P, Post Hoc | 12 months after the end of orthodontic treatment | PD was higher in treated groups than in their respective control groups. KT was generally lower in both treatment groups than in their respective control groups | No |
Crescini et al. [26] | Retrospective | 15. (8 palatal and 7 buccal). (Control group: contralateral teeth) | 14 yrs e 8 months | 4 M and 11F | CT | Dental: fixed appliance | Elastic traction | Student- t test | After an average period of 39 months | CAL, REC not statistically relevant. PI e BOP increased compared to the control group. KT was lower compared to the control group | NS |
Zasciurinskiene et al. [25] | retrospective | 32. (control group: contralateral teeth) | 18.2 ± 5.1 yrs | 10 M and 22F | CT | Dental: palatal arch at the start and fixed appliance later | Ligation chain | Nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test, Mann–Whitney U-test | 3 months after removal of the fixed appliances | Mean PD at the mesiopalatal point on the treated canine was greater than in contralateral canines. REC had non-significant values | NS |
Caprioglio et al. [23] | Retrospective | 33. (control group: contralateral teeth) | 12.4–24.1 yrs | 9 M and 24 F | CT | Dental: fixed appliance + Trans-palatal arch | Easy Cuspid device | Student t -test | 4.6 years after the end of the active treatment phase | PD differences were not statistically significant | NS |
Evren et al. [24] | Retrospective | 30. (group 1: 15 Palatal; group 2: 15 Buccal) (Control group: contralateral teeth) | 11.43 ± 1.5 yrs | Group 1: CT | - | - | T-test, Wilcox test, Mann.Whitney U-test | 3.82 ± 1.54 years after the orthodontic treatment | Group 1 had a higher PD and a lower bone level compared to the control group. Variation of PI, GBI, CAL loss and REC were no statistically significant | NS | |
Bollero et al. [22] | Retrospective | 28. (group 1:14 buccal; group 2:14 palatal) (Control group: contralateral teeth) | 13yrs and 5 months ± 1 yr and 4 months | Group 1: 7 M and 7F, group 2: 6 M and 8F | Group 2: CT | Dental: fixed appliance + quad-helix canine system | Elastic tie | T-test, Wilcox test, Mann–Whitney U-test | After a mean period of 2 yrs 4 months ± 1 yr 1 month following the removal of the orthodontic appliances | Group 2: PD was greater mesio-palatally compared to the control group. No statistical difference in the PI, BOP, REC, KT between group 2 and the control group | NS |