Maxillary Incisor Intrusion Using Mini-Implants and Conventional Intrusion Arch: A Systematic Review and...

The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the maxillary incisor intrusion and change in overbite achieved by micro-implants compared to Connecticut intrusion arches among post-pubertal patients with deep bite. Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google scholar were searched for studies falling under the inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) com- paring maxillary incisor intrusion among post-pubertal deep bite cases treated by mini-implants and Connecticut intrusion arches were to be included. Outcome data were extracted using guidelines published by the Cochrane Collaboration. A systematic review was conducted using Cochrane Program Review Manager, version 5. A random effects model was used to assess the mean difference in the amount of incisor intrusion and overbite correction achieved between the 2 methods. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Assessment of certainty of evidence was conducted using GRADE analysis. Six trials met the inclusion criteria. Mean differences for incisor intrusion -0.67 [95% CI, 0.97, 0.38] I2 = 31%; P < .00001) and overbite correction -0.51 [95% CI, 0.85, 0.16] I2 = 50%; P = .004) achieved with mini-implants were found to be significantly effective when compared to the Connecticut intrusion arch. Low to mod- erate heterogeneity was noted for incisor intrusion and change in overbite analysis respectively. High certainty of evidence was noted for higher association of mini-implants with incisor intrusion and overbite correction. Our meta-analysis suggests that mini-implants are superior to the Connecticut intrusion arch with respect to the amount of incisor intrusion and overbite correction. Further studies are still needed to confirm the superiority.