Comparação entre alinhadores ortodônticos e aparelhos ortodônticos fixos convencionais:

uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise

Abstract

Introduction: Due to the aesthetic appeal of patients, orthodontic aligners were developed as an alternative to conventional fixed braces.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and efficiency of orthodontic aligners (OA) with conventional fixed orthodontic appliances (CFOA).

Materials and Methods: Searches were carried out in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Two authors evaluated the retrieved references. References that met the eligibility criteria were included. The quality of the studies was assessed by means of the Cochrane tool. A meta-analysis was performed. The searches in the databases yielded 997 references. Following the removal of duplicates, 859 references were evaluated and 14 studies were included.

Results: The meta-analyses demonstrated that CFOA were more efficacious than OA to correct occlusal discrepancies (mean difference=3.32). There were no differences between the devices regarding pain in the first days of treatment (mean difference=0.25). CFOA were more efficacious in correcting parameters related to smile evaluation. CFOA were also related to greater difficulty in eating, longer duration of the first appointment and treatment and a greater number of emergency appointments (P<0.05). Individuals wearing OA presented better gingival health parameters on the short term, a higher number of reports of pain on the long term and demanded more time from the orthodontist during the consultations (P<0.05). The main methodological issues presented by the included studies were in the random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of the participants/personnel.

Conclusion: One can conclude that AOFC were more efficacious in correcting malocclusion, despite demanding longer treatment duration and being associated with difficulties in eating.