Table 4.
Summary of the results of the included studies (alveolar bone and periodontal measurements).
| Authors | Alveolar Bone (mm) (after Treatment) |
Periodontal Evaluation (after Treatment) |
Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Becker et al. [11] | ICI values: alveolar bone support (m) 78.5% *. alveolar bone support (d) 79.9% *. CCI values: alveolar bone support (m) 84.6% *. alveolar bone support (d) 84.3% *. |
Probing depth ICI values: MLP 2.76; MP 2; DLP 2.94 *; MPP 2.42; PP 2.28 *; DPP 2.34. Probing depth CCI values: MLP 2.52; MP 1.8; DLP 2.63 *; MPP 2.52; PP 1.78 *, DPP 2.26. |
A statistically significant difference between ICI and CCI in: -the mean probing depth, especially in the distolabial and palatal areas; -the reduction of alveolar bone support (mesial and distal aspects). |
| Chaushu et al. [14] | ICI values: alveolar bone support (m) 71.4% *. alveolar bone support (d) 83.2%. CCI values: alveolar bone support (m) 81.6% *. alveolar bone support (d) 83.9%. |
Probing depth ICI values: MLP 3 *; MP 1.9; DLP 2.59; MPP 2.59; PP 1.82; DPP 2.2. Probing depth CCI values: MLP 2.32 *; MP 1.72; DLP 2.45; MPP 2.15; PP 1.81; DPP 2.09. |
A statistically significant difference between ICI and CCI in: -the mean probing depth, especially in the mesio-labial aspect; -the reduction in the width of the attached gingiva; -the reduction of alveolar bone support on the mesial aspects. |
| Shi et al. [18] | ICI values: Bone loss labially 2.91 ± 1.63 *; Bone loss palatally 0.93 ± 1.00; The bone thickness of labial alveolar crest 0.73 ± 0.19; The bone thickness of lingual alveolar crest 1.40 ± 0.64 *; Bone thickness at the root apex labially 4.24 ± 1.97; Bone thickness at the root apex palatally 7.17 ± 2.01. CCI values: Bone loss labially 1.40 ± 0.91 *; Bone loss palatally 0.77 ± 0.68; The bone thickness of labial alveolar crest 0.73 ± 0.19; The bone thickness of lingual alveolar crest 1.20 ± 0.41 *; Bone thickness at the root apex labially 4.95 ± 1.41; Bone thickness at the root apex palatally 6.94 ± 1.32. |
Not evaluated | The labial bone thicknesses at the alveolar crest and apex of ICI and CCI were significantly thinner after treatment than the corresponding lingual values. Alveolar bone loss on the labial side of ICI increased significantly compared with the CCI, whereas the lingual values did not differ. |
| Sun et al. [19] | ICI values: ET group: Bone loss labially 2.14 ± 1.22 *; Bone loss palatally 1.72 ± 1.19; Bone thickness labially 2.19 ± 1.15; Bone thickness palatally 7.09 ± 1.02. LT group: Bone loss labially 3.30 ± 1.18 *; Bone loss palatally 2.33 ± 1.41; Bone thickness labially 1.61 ± 1.93; Bone thickness palatally 8.00 ± 1.65. |
Not evaluated | The results of alveolar bone loss on the labial side are better in the ET when compared with the LT group |
| Hu et al. [12] | ICI values: (T1): Bone loss labially 3.20 ± 1.76; Bone loss palatally 2.39 ± 0.95; The bone thickness of labial alveolar crest 1.15 ± 0.49 *; The bone thickness of lingual alveolar crest 2.49 ± 1.47 *; Bone thickness at the root apex labially 2.34 ± 1.66 *; Bone thickness at the root apex palatally 7.45 ± 1.23. (T2): Bone loss labially 3.07 ± 2.32; Bone loss palatally 2.11 ± 1.02; * The bone thickness of labial alveolar crest 0.95 ± 0.31; The bone thickness of lingual alveolar crest 2.31 ± 1.63; Bone thickness at the root apex labially 3.73 ± 2.57; Bone thickness at the root apex palatally 7.12 ± 1.72. CCI values: (T1): Bone loss labially 1.66 ± 0.42; Bone loss palatally 1.14 ± 0.63; The bone thickness of labial alveolar crest 1.06 ± 0.33 *; The bone thickness of lingual alveolar crest 1.63 ± 0.58; Bone thickness at the root apex labially 5.05 ± 1.13 *; Bone thickness at the root apex palatally 6.41 ± 0.87 *. (T2): Bone loss labially 1.81 ± 0.63; Bone loss palatally 1.39 ± 0.39 *; The bone thickness of labial alveolar crest 0.79 ± 0.23; The bone thickness of lingual alveolar crest 1.57 ± 0.40; Bone thickness at the root apex labially 3.60 ± 1.75; Bone thickness at the root apex palatally 7.27 ± 1.48. |
Not evaluated | The lingual alveolar bone loss of ICC was greater than that of CCI immediately after treatment, whereas the labial losses did not differ. The labial bone thickness at the apex of the impacted incisors increased significantly between T1 and T2. |
| Sfeir et al. [20] | Diff ICI- CCI values: DT group— MBL 0.19 ± 0.4. LBL 0.08 ± 0.13 **. DBL 0.29 ± 0.56. PBL 0.09 ± 0.13 **. CT group— MBL 0.2 ± 0.24. LBL 0.45 ± 0.12 **. DBL 0.23 ± 0.21. PBL 0.38 ± 0.13 **. |
Probing depth Diff ICI- CCI values: DT group— MP 0.19 ± 0.31 **; LP 0.35 ± 0.30; DP 0.23 ± 0.25; PP 0.27 ± 0.25. CT group— MP 0.43 ± 0.31 **; LP 0.43 ± 0.13; DP 0.4 ± 0.33; PP 0.23 ± 0.36. |
DT and CT groups showed statistically significant difference for the following measurements: -Mesial probing (MP); -labial bone level (LBL); -palatal bone level (PBL). The use of a discontinuous Ortho-T technique can provide better results in periodontal status and a net reduction in bone height loss. |
ICI, impacted central incisor; CCI, contralateral central incisor; DT, discontinuous traction; CT, continuous traction; MP, medial probing depth; DP, distal probing depth; LP, labial probing depth; PP, palatal probing depth (mm); MLP, mesio-labial probing depth; DLP, disto-labial probing depth; MPP, mesio-palatal probing depth; DPP, disto-palatal probing depth (mm); MBL, mesial bone level; LBL, labial bone level; PBL, palatal bone level; DBL, distal bone level (mm); Diff, mean differences in measurements between ICI and CCI. * statistically significant difference between ICC and CCI groups. ** statistically significant difference between DT and CT groups.