Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42367513
Maxillary Arch Intrusion With Temporary Anchorage Devices Versus Conventional Intrusion Arches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Khamatkar Aparna, Sawtekar Aditi, Shetty Karthick, et al. · Cureus · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.7759/cureus.109783
Findings
Population Patients with deep bite or Class II malocclusion undergoing maxillary incisor intrusion
5 findings
| Maxillary incisor intrusion with temporary anchorage devices (TADs/mini-implants) | Connecticut intrusion arch (CTA) | Treatment duration | MD -0.13 [-0.64, 0.38] Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision 2 studies · 66 participants |
| Maxillary incisor intrusion with temporary anchorage devices (TADs/mini-implants) | Connecticut intrusion arch (CTA) | Amount of incisor intrusion Randomized controlled trials only (exploratory subgroup) | SMD -1.02 [-1.79, -0.24] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 92 participants |
| Maxillary incisor intrusion with temporary anchorage devices (TADs/mini-implants) | Connecticut intrusion arch (CTA) | Amount of incisor intrusion | SMD -0.88 [-1.35, -0.42] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision 5 studies · 136 participants |
| Maxillary incisor intrusion with temporary anchorage devices (TADs/mini-implants) | Connecticut intrusion arch (CTA) | Rate of intrusion | SMD 1.18 [0.22, 2.14] Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency 2 studies · 50 participants |
| Maxillary incisor intrusion with temporary anchorage devices (TADs/mini-implants) | Connecticut intrusion arch (CTA) | Overbite correction | SMD -0.48 [-1.02, 0.06] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision 4 studies · 96 participants |
Included primary studies 11
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gupta 2017 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | 2 other reviews | Amount of incisor intrusion; Overbite correction | not extracted yet |
| El Namrawy 2019 Intrusive Arch versus Miniscrew-Supported Intrusion for Deep Bite Correction. PMID:31316671 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Gurlen 2016 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | Amount of incisor intrusion; Overbite correction | not extracted yet |
| Jain 2014 Comparison of intrusion effects on maxillary incisors among mini implant anchorage, j-hook headgear and utility arch. PMID:25177631 | 2014 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kahraman 2017 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | Treatment duration | not extracted yet |
| Kumar 2017 Rate of intrusion of maxillary incisors in Class II Div 1 malocclusion using skeletal anchorage device and Connecticut intrusion arch DOI:10.1016/j.mjafi.2015.10.006 | 2017 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kumar 2017 Rate of intrusion of maxillary incisors in Class II Div 1 malocclusion using skeletal anchorage device and Connecticut intrusion arch. PMID:28123248 | 2017 | this review only | Rate of intrusion; Amount of incisor intrusion | not extracted yet |
| Ölmez Gürlen and Aras 2016 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Senisik 2012 Treatment effects of intrusion arches and mini-implant systems in deepbite patients. PMID:22640674 | 2012 | this review only | Amount of incisor intrusion; Overbite correction; Treatment duration | not extracted yet |
| Senışık and Türkkahraman 2012 Treatment effects of intrusion arches and mini-implant systems in deepbite patients DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.12.024 | 2012 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Shakti 2021 Maxillary Incisor Intrusion Using Two Conventional Intrusion Arches and Mini Implants: A Prospective Study. PMID:34753843 | 2021 | this review only | Rate of intrusion; Amount of incisor intrusion; Overbite correction | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients with deep bite or Class II malocclusion undergoing maxillary incisor intrusion | Deep bite or Class II malocclusion patients (n=9 studies; 3 RCTs, 6 non-randomized) |
| Intervention | Intrusion with temporary anchorage devices or orthodontic mini-implants | TADs or mini-implants (n=9) |
| Comparison | Conventional intrusion arches (Connecticut, Burstone, utility arch) | Connecticut intrusion arch (n=7 in pooled analyses), Burstone arch, utility arch, intrusive arch |
| Outcomes | Amount of intrusion, rate of intrusion, overbite correction, treatment duration; adverse outcomes | Rate of intrusion (n=2); incisor intrusion (n=5); overbite correction (n=4); treatment duration (n=2) |
| Study designs | RCTs and non-randomized controlled clinical studies | 3 RCTs; 6 non-randomized comparative studies |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: Yes | NRSI: Yes · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: No | NRSI: No · RCT: Yes | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |