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

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) comparing 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 moderate 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.