Abstract：
To test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in treatment efficiency between therapies undertaken with conventional (CBs), passive self-ligating (PSLBs) or active self-ligating (ASLBs) brackets.
An electronic search was performed in 3 data bases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) from their origin up to January 2019. Additional references were hand searched. Search was strictly restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and split-mouth design studies (SMDs). RCTs and SMDs were initially processed separately and subsequently combined in a network meta-analysis. The following variables were evaluated: treatment duration, number of visits, occlusal outcomes, alignment rate, transverse arch dimensional changes, incisor position modification, rate of space closure, anchorage loss, bond failure, root resorption, perception of discomfort during the initial phase of alignment, time to ligate in or to untie an archwire, periodontal variables, quality of life.
On 229 papers, 30 RCTs and 9 SMDs were finally included in this study. Out of 85 comparisons, 16 only revealed statistically significant differences. It was quicker to untie and ligate an 0.014 NiTi arch from/in 6 ASLBs anterior ceramic brackets compared to 6 ceramic CBs. It was also more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025 SS wire in/from PSLB\'s brackets compared to CB\'s attachments. Compared to conventional brackets, there was less maxillary incisor proclination with PSLBs in non-extraction cases. Moreover, there was less bleeding on probing 4-5 weeks after bonding with PSLBs compared to CBs brackets. The only significant difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. The network meta-analysis revealed that IMPA was greater in extractions cases with CBs compared with both ASLBs (+2,5°) and PSLBs (+1,6°).
The vast majority of the studied variables did not show any significant differences between the three types of brackets. The most significant findings were that it was quicker to insert and remove archwires from ASLBs compared to CBs, and it was more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025\" stainless steel wire in/from PSLBs compared to CBs. The major difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. Most of the claims put forward by the suppliers were not substantiated by our network meta-analysis.
An electronic search was performed in 3 data bases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) from their origin up to January 2019. Additional references were hand searched. Search was strictly restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and split-mouth design studies (SMDs). RCTs and SMDs were initially processed separately and subsequently combined in a network meta-analysis. The following variables were evaluated: treatment duration, number of visits, occlusal outcomes, alignment rate, transverse arch dimensional changes, incisor position modification, rate of space closure, anchorage loss, bond failure, root resorption, perception of discomfort during the initial phase of alignment, time to ligate in or to untie an archwire, periodontal variables, quality of life.
On 229 papers, 30 RCTs and 9 SMDs were finally included in this study. Out of 85 comparisons, 16 only revealed statistically significant differences. It was quicker to untie and ligate an 0.014 NiTi arch from/in 6 ASLBs anterior ceramic brackets compared to 6 ceramic CBs. It was also more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025 SS wire in/from PSLB\'s brackets compared to CB\'s attachments. Compared to conventional brackets, there was less maxillary incisor proclination with PSLBs in non-extraction cases. Moreover, there was less bleeding on probing 4-5 weeks after bonding with PSLBs compared to CBs brackets. The only significant difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. The network meta-analysis revealed that IMPA was greater in extractions cases with CBs compared with both ASLBs (+2,5°) and PSLBs (+1,6°).
The vast majority of the studied variables did not show any significant differences between the three types of brackets. The most significant findings were that it was quicker to insert and remove archwires from ASLBs compared to CBs, and it was more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025\" stainless steel wire in/from PSLBs compared to CBs. The major difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. Most of the claims put forward by the suppliers were not substantiated by our network meta-analysis.
摘要：
为了检验零假设，即传统疗法（CB）之间的治疗效率没有差异，被动自锁托槽(PSLB)或主动自锁托槽(ASLB)。
在3个数据库中进行了电子搜索(Pubmed，WebofScience,Cochrane图书馆）从其起源到2019年1月。手工搜索了其他参考文献。搜索严格限于随机对照试验（RCTs）和裂口设计研究（SMD）。RCT和SMD最初分别处理，随后在网络荟萃分析中合并。评估了以下变量：治疗持续时间，访问次数,咬合结果，对准率,横向拱尺寸变化，门牙位置修正,空间闭合率，锚固损失,粘结失效,根吸收，在对齐的初始阶段对不适的感知，系紧弓丝或解开弓丝的时间，牙周变量，生活质量。
在229篇论文中，30个RCT和9个SMD最终纳入本研究。在85个比较中，16只显示了统计学上的显著差异。与6个陶瓷CB相比，从6个ASLBs前陶瓷托槽中解开和结扎0.014NiTi弓更快。与CB的附件相比，在PSLB的支架中插入和移除0.019×0.025SS线也更痛苦。与传统支架相比，在非拔牙病例中，PSLBs的上颌切牙前移较少。此外，与CBs支架相比,PSLBs结合后4-5周探查出血较少.ASLB和PSLB之间的唯一显着差异是，即使ASLB和PSLB之间的治疗持续时间没有显着差异，与被动自结扎支具相比，主动自结扎支具的对齐速度也要快10天。网络荟萃分析显示，与ASLBs（2,5°）和PSLBs（1,6°）相比，CBs提取病例的IMPA更大。
绝大多数研究的变量在三种类型的括号之间没有显示出任何显着差异。最重要的发现是，与CBs相比，从ASLBs插入和移除弓丝更快，与CBs相比，在PSLB中插入和取出0.019×0.025“不锈钢丝更痛苦。ASLB和PSLB之间的主要差异是，与被动自结扎支具相比，主动自结扎支具的对齐速度快10天，即使ASLB和PSLB之间的治疗持续时间没有显着差异。供应商提出的大多数索赔都没有得到我们网络荟萃分析的证实。
在3个数据库中进行了电子搜索(Pubmed，WebofScience,Cochrane图书馆）从其起源到2019年1月。手工搜索了其他参考文献。搜索严格限于随机对照试验（RCTs）和裂口设计研究（SMD）。RCT和SMD最初分别处理，随后在网络荟萃分析中合并。评估了以下变量：治疗持续时间，访问次数,咬合结果，对准率,横向拱尺寸变化，门牙位置修正,空间闭合率，锚固损失,粘结失效,根吸收，在对齐的初始阶段对不适的感知，系紧弓丝或解开弓丝的时间，牙周变量，生活质量。
在229篇论文中，30个RCT和9个SMD最终纳入本研究。在85个比较中，16只显示了统计学上的显著差异。与6个陶瓷CB相比，从6个ASLBs前陶瓷托槽中解开和结扎0.014NiTi弓更快。与CB的附件相比，在PSLB的支架中插入和移除0.019×0.025SS线也更痛苦。与传统支架相比，在非拔牙病例中，PSLBs的上颌切牙前移较少。此外，与CBs支架相比,PSLBs结合后4-5周探查出血较少.ASLB和PSLB之间的唯一显着差异是，即使ASLB和PSLB之间的治疗持续时间没有显着差异，与被动自结扎支具相比，主动自结扎支具的对齐速度也要快10天。网络荟萃分析显示，与ASLBs（2,5°）和PSLBs（1,6°）相比，CBs提取病例的IMPA更大。
绝大多数研究的变量在三种类型的括号之间没有显示出任何显着差异。最重要的发现是，与CBs相比，从ASLBs插入和移除弓丝更快，与CBs相比，在PSLB中插入和取出0.019×0.025“不锈钢丝更痛苦。ASLB和PSLB之间的主要差异是，与被动自结扎支具相比，主动自结扎支具的对齐速度快10天，即使ASLB和PSLB之间的治疗持续时间没有显着差异。供应商提出的大多数索赔都没有得到我们网络荟萃分析的证实。
