Angle Orthod. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.2319/081619-536.1. [Epub ahead of print]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
To
investigate whether there was a difference in success rates when
stainless steel (SS) was compared to titanium mini-implants (MIs) in
orthodontic patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
PubMed,
Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs, Google Scholar, Clinical
Trials, and OpenGray were searched without restrictions. A manual search
was also performed in the references of the included articles. Studies
comparing the success rate between SS and titanium MIs were included.
Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in
Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions) Tool or RoB 2.0 according to
the study design. The level of evidence was assessed through GRADE
(Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation).
RESULTS:
Six
studies met the eligibility criteria. One study was a randomized
clinical trial that evaluated extraalveolar MIs, and nonrandomized
trials examined interradicular MIs. The RCT presented a low RoB, two
nonrandomized trials presented a moderate risk, and three presented a
high risk. The quality of the evidence was high for the randomized
clinical trial and moderate for the nonrandomized trials. Most studies
found no difference between materials, with good success rates for both
(SS, 74.6%-100%; titanium: 80.9%-100%) and only one study, with a high
RoB, showed a higher success rate with titanium MIs (90%) when compared
with SS (50%). A quantitative analysis was not because of the great
heterogeneity among the studies.
CONCLUSIONS:
Although
limited, the current evidence seems to show that the material used is
not a major factor in the success rate of MIs. Because it has a lower
cost than titanium and presents similar clinical efficiency, SS is a
great material for orthodontic MIs.
Comments