4.1 Review

Lingual vs. labial fixed orthodontic appliances: systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effects

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES
Volume 124, Issue 2, Pages 105-118

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eos.12250

Keywords

fixed appliances; labial appliances; lingual appliances; orthodontics

Funding

  1. Clinical Research Unit (University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany) [208]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the therapeutic and adverse effects of lingual and labial orthodontic fixed appliances from clinical trials on human patients in an evidence-based manner. Randomized and prospective non-randomized clinical trials comparing lingual and labial appliances were included. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed using the Cochrane tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, followed by subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Six electronic databases were searched from inception to July 2015, without limitations. A total of 13 papers pertaining to 11 clinical trials were included with a total of 407 (34% male/66% female) patients. Compared with labial appliances, lingual appliances were associated with increased overall oral discomfort, increased speech impediment (measured using auditory analysis), worse speech performance assessed by laypersons, increased eating difficulty, and decreased intermolar width. On the other hand, lingual appliances were associated with increased intercanine width and significantly decreased anchorage loss of the maxillary first molar during space closure. Based on existing trials, there is insufficient evidence to make robust recommendations for lingual fixed orthodontic appliances regarding their therapeutic or adverse effects, as the quality of evidence was low.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available