Maxillary molar distalization using conventional versus skeletal anchorage devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the evidence regarding conventional versus skeletal anchorage devices for molar distalization. METHOD: An electronic search was conducted. Hand searching was done in the reference lists of included studies and some journals. Studies comparing conventional and skeletal anchorage for molar distalization in Angle class I or II malocclusions were assessed. Presence of periodontal disease, second or third molar extraction and application of tooth accelerating methods led to exclusion of studies. Generic-inverse variance approach was used for meta-analysis by use of the mean difference and random-effect model. Risk of bias was evaluated in included studies. RESULTS: A total of 1996 articles were found; of which, 1991 were excluded. The mean amounts of molar distalization/tipping in skeletal anchorage and conventional anchorage groups were 5.35mm/8.44 degrees and 4.25mm/8.31 degrees , respectively, which were not significantly different. The mean amounts of premolar movement in skeletal anchorage and conventional anchorage groups were -0.96mm and +2.21mm, respectively, which was statistically significant (P=0.004). Duration of treatment in skeletal anchorage and conventional anchorage groups was 8.23 months and 7.95 months, respectively, which were significantly different (P=0.0001). Risk of bias was assessed to be high. CONCLUSION: The conventional and skeletal anchorage devices were not significantly different in terms of the amount of molar distalization/tipping. However, the anchorage loss was lower in the skeletal anchorage group. The treatment time was shorter in the conventional anchorage group. More studies with proper design are required.