Management Strategies for Open Bite Relapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The purpose of orthodontic therapy is to correct malocclusion and produce a stable outcome that endures over time. Long-term stability can be difficult to achieve, and many patients relapse after treatment, particularly in instances of open bite relapse (OBR). This systematic review aimed to analyze different types of management strategies for OBR and conduct a meta-analysis to find the best method of dealing with relapse. A comprehensive search was carried out across six major online databases using relevant keywords pertaining to our study, including "open bite relapse," "orthodontic retention," "orthodontic surgery," "orthodontic appliance," "orthodontic management," "orthodontic treatment," "orofacial myofunctional therapy (OMT)," "skeletal anchorage," and "treatment follow-up period." Eleven studies were selected after the application of relevant inclusion and exclusion strategies. The mean follow-up period of treatment for the studies ranged from six months to 4.5 years. Of all the management strategies assessed, OMT was found to be the least effective for OBR management. Surgical management modalities, such as mandibular repositioning and molar intrusion using skeletal anchorage, in conjunction with the usage of orthodontic appliances, were found to be noticeably effective, especially in the cases of participants who were <18 years of age. However, when utilized on a singular basis, either of them was found to be lacking the desired effect. The overall odds ratio (OR) of 0.48 (0.37, 0.64) and risk ratio (RR) of 0.62 (0.51, 0.74) were obtained after the meta-analysis of the different interventions for OBR, indicating statistical significance. There were only 11 studies included in the study, so it's possible that not all management strategies for OBR were fully understood. The limited number of studies may also have affected the generalizability of the findings. Although statistical differences were obtained to a certain degree, more clinical trials are needed to assess the effect of such surgical modalities as a viable management tool for OBR, since these represent a significant limiting factor in terms of the overall cost of the treatment placed upon the patient. Prior to the start of the research, registration was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards. The research protocol was created to meet the goals and was properly filed with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023401991).