1http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v20i00.8663795 Volume 20 2021 e213795 Original Article 1 Department of Orthodontics, College of Stomatology, The First Affiliated Stomatological Hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710004, PR China 2 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran 3 School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran 4 School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Tabriz, Iran Corresponding author: Ali Amiri Department of Orthodontics, College of Stomatology, The First Affiliated Stomatological Hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710004, PR China Tell: +86-2982655450 Email: draliamiri2020@gmail.com Editor: Dr Altair A. Del Bel Cury Received: January 1, 2021 Accepted: April 5, 2021 Evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of miniscrews in class i and ii malocclusion patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ali Amiri1,* , Setareh Khosravi2 , Abolfazl Habibi Arbastan3 , Sara Jafarizadeh4 Aim: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of miniscrews in Class I and II Malocclusion Patients. Methods: From electronic databases, between 2010 and 2020, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI were used to conduct systematic literature. Two reviewers extracted data blindly and independently from the abstract and full text of the studies they used for data extraction. The mean differences between the two groups (miniscrews vs. conventional anchorage) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI), the Inverse-variance method, and the fixed-effect model were calculated. The Meta-analysis was evaluated using the statistical software Stata/MP v.16 (The fastest version of Stata). Results: A total of 186 potentially relevant titles and abstracts were found during the electronic and manual search. Finally, the inclusion criteria required for this systematic review were met by a total of seven publications. The mean difference of molar mesiodistal movement among seven studies and heterogeneity was -0.53 mm (MD, -0.53 95 % CI -0.69, -0.38. P= 0.00) (I2 = 96.52 %). This result showed maximum reinforcement in miniscrews with fewer mesial movements. Conclusion: The result of the current systematic review and meta-analysis shows that miniscrews in patients with class II and I malocclusion help maintain better anchorage preservation than traditional anchorage devices. Keywords: Orthodontic anchorage procedures. Malocclusion, Angle Class II. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9416-808X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7360-269X https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7611-4133 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5196-0296 2 Amiri et al. Introduction Malocclusion was first introduced by Edward Angel, the father of modern orthodon- tics. Malocclusion is a misalignment between the two dental arches’ teeth when they approach each other as the jaws close with a bite1. It is also a growing problem in public health due to its high prevalence2. Malocclusions feature the third-highest prev- alence among oral pathologies, second only to tooth decay and periodontal disease, and therefore rank third among worldwide dental public health priorities3-5. One of the skeletal classes’ treatment methods is to limit the decreased arch length due to mesial movement6. In class I and II malocclusions, traditional methods such as Trans-pala- tal arches and multi-tooth differential moments in the anchorage segment are used7. However, traditional methods are not recommended, because in some cases, anchor- age loss has been observed. Miniscrews are used for maximum anchorage8. The survival rate in studies reported between 80 and 90%. The difference between this method and other methods is That they are not directly connected to the teeth9-12. It is important to note that miniscrews do not allow any unnecessary movement after placement13,14. Recent studies show that anchorage losses are observed after the use of miniscrews15-17. As a result, more studies are needed to be able to compare new and traditional methods. Over the past few years, differences between study results have left little evidence for the exact effects of Miniscrews. Lack of studies show- ing significant anchorage losses and movements of miniscrews. In previous stud- ies, insufficient evidence has been provided, the sample size is low, and the quality of studies is very low, so the present study was conducted to provide stronger evi- dence. However, previous studies have been written as literature; the present study is a meta-analysis. Also, for successful treatment results, a comparison of minis- crews effectiveness in malocclusion class I or II is required. The aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis study is to evaluate the miniscrew outcomes in patients with Class I and II Malocclusion, given the importance of the subject and the gap between the studies’ results. Materials and methods Search strategy PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library were used from electronic databases to conduct systematic literature between 2010 and 2020. Therefore, to manage the electronic titles, a software program (Endnote X8) was used. Searches have been performed with mesh terms: (“Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures”[Mesh] OR “Dental Abutments”[Mesh]) AND “Orthodontic Brackets”[Mesh]) OR (“Malocclusion”[Mesh] OR “Malocclusion, Angle Class II”[Mesh] OR “Malocclusion, Angle Class I”[Mesh] ), and keywords Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures, Dental Abutments, skeletal anchorage, temporary anchorage devices, Ortho- dontic Brackets, miniscrew implant, micro-implant, Malocclusion, Angle Class II, Angle Class I were used for other databases. On PRISMA guidelines, this systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted18 and PICO or PECO strategy (Table1). 3 Amiri et al. Table 1. PICO OR PECO strategy. PICO OR PECO strategy Description P Population/ Patient: patients with class I and II malocclusion E Exposure/ Intervention: miniscrews C Comparison: miniscrews vs. traditional anchorage O Outcome: Mesiodistal and Vertical movement of incisors and molars Selection criteria Inclusion criteria 1. Randomized controlled trial studies, controlled clinical trials, prospective and re- trospective cohort studies. 2. Patients treated with fixed orthodontic treatment 3. Only patients with Class I and II malocclusion 4. maxillary or bimaxillary protrusion 5. efficiency outcomes of buccal inserted maxillary miniscrews 6. Intervention group: Miniscrews/mini-implants temporary anchorage devices (TAD) 7. control group: Traditional anchorage 8. Mesiodistal movement of the maxillary first molars, vertical movement of the molars 9. English language Exclusion criteria 1. In vitro studies, reviews, case-Control Studies, case report, and animal studies 2. Incomplete or inconsistent data for the present study. 3. Onplant, Orthosystem, mini-plates 4. patients with class III malocclusion 5. Miniscrews placed in palatal or zygomatic areas Data Extraction and analysis method The data were extracted from the research included years, study design, maloc- clusion type, duration of space closure, traditional anchorage group, sample size, mean/range of age, group of miniscrews, measurement Techniques. Using the Cochrane Collaboration tool, the quality of the randomized clinical trials the studies included was analyzed19. The scale scores for low risk were one and for High and unclear risk was 0. Scale scores range from 0 to 6. A higher score means higher 4 Amiri et al. quality. Also Non- randomized clinical trial studies were evaluated using the Newcas- tle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)20; the scale scores range from 0 (lowest grade) to 8 (highest grade). Two reviewers extracted data blindly and independently from the abstract and full text of the studies they used for data extraction. The mean differences of mesiodistal dental movement, vertical dental movement between the two groups (miniscrews vs. conventional anchorage) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI), the inverse-variance method, and the fixed-effect model were calculated. To deal with potential heterogeneity, random effects were used, and I2 showed heterogeneity. For the meta-analysis, Stata V16 Software was used. Results According to the purpose of the study, in the initial search with keywords, 186 articles were found. In the first step of selecting studies, 184 studies were selected to review the abstracts. Then, studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded from the study. In the second step, the full text of 43 studies was reviewed. Finally, seven studies were selected (Figure1). Studies identified (n = 186) PubMed (61) Embase (76), Cochrane Library (49) Studies after copies expelled (n = 184) Studies screened (n = 184) Studies excluded (n = 141) In vitro studies, reviews, case-Control Studies, case report and animal studies, Incomplete or inconsistent data for the present study, Onplant, Orthosystem, mini-plates, patients with class III malocclusion, Miniscrews placed in palatal or zygomatic areas. Not meet eligibility criteria. Full content article surveyed for eligibility (n = 43) Full content article excluded (n = 36) Not meet eligibility criteria The included studies (n = 7) Id en ti fi ca ti on S cr ee ni n El ig ib ili ty In cl ud ed Figure 1. Study Attrition Bias assessment According to Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, two studies, 23, 24 had a total score of 5/6 with high quality and a low risk of bias (Table 3). According to NOS, three studies 19,22,21 had a total score of 6/8, two studies 25, 27 had a total score of 7/8. This outcome showed scores ranged from 6 to 8 and low risk of bias or high quality of all studies (Table 4). 5 Amiri et al. Ta bl e 2. S tu di es w er e se le ct ed fo r s ys te m at ic re vi ew a nd m et a- an al ys is . S tu di es . Y ea rs S tu dy de si gn N um be r of p at ie nt s M ea n/ R an ge o f a ge (y ea rs ) Ty pe o f M al oc cl us io n M et ho ds o f an ch or ag e M ea su re m en t Te ch ni qu es O rt ho do nt ic S pa ce C lo su re (m on th ) M S C A M S C A M al e Fe m al e M al e Fe m al e M S C A C ho pr a et a l. 20 17 21 P 12 13 12 13 15 .1 2 15 .0 8 cl as s I o r cl as s II N an ce B ut to n; lin gu al a rc h LC A 21 .1 6 21 .7 6 C he n et a l. 20 15 22 P 6 9 7 9 26 .5 3 25 .2 5 cl as s I o r cl as s II H ea dg ea r LC A 21 .9 3 23 .8 8 Sa nd le r e t a l. 20 14 23 R C T 11 16 19 7 14 .1 5 14 .2 6 cl as s I o r cl as s II H ea dg ea r an d N an ce B ut to n 3D 26 .8 3 27 .7 2 A l-S ib ai e an d H aj ee r 2 01 42 4 R C T 12 16 9 19 23 .0 2 20 .4 6 cl as s I o r cl as s II tr an sp al at al ar ch LC A 12 .9 0 16 .9 7 P ar k et a l. 20 12 25 P 4 8 1 11 18 .8 25 .4 cl as s I o r cl as s II tr an sp al at al ar ch , H ea dg ea r 3D 8. 6 9. 8 K oy am a et a l. 20 11 26 P 1 13 2 12 25 24 .8 cl as s I H ea dg ea r LC A N R Le e an d K im 20 11 27 P 0 20 0 20 24 .6 4 22 .1 6 cl as s I tr an sp al at al ar ch , H ea dg ea r LC A N R P : p ro sp ec tiv e st ud y; R C T: ra nd om iz ed c lin ic al tr ia ls ; M S: m in is cr ew s; C A : t ra di tio na l a nc ho ra ge ; L C A : L at er al c ep ha lo m et ric a na ly si s; 3 D :3 D s tu dy m od el a na ly si s; N R : n ot re po rt ed ; 6 Amiri et al. Table 3. Risk of bias assessment (Randomized clinical trials). Study R an do m g en er at io n of s eq ue nc es C on ce al m en t o f A llo ca ti on B lin di ng o f pa rt ic ip an ts a nd pe rs on ne l B lin di ng o f o ut co m e as se ss m en t In co m pl et e da ta o n ou tc om es S el ec ti ve re po rt in g To ta l s co re Sandler et al. 201423 + + - + + + 5 Al-Sibaie and Hajeer 201424 + + - + + + 5 Low (+), unclear (?), high (-) Table 4. Risk of bias assessment (Non-randomized clinical trials). Study S el ec t t he m ai n gr ou p S el ec t t he g ro up o f c on tr ol D et er m in at io n of th e M ai n G ro up D em on st ra ti on th at th e ou tc om e of in te re st a t t he b eg in ni ng o f th e st ud y w as n ot p re se nt C om pa ra bi lit y of b ot h gr ou p pa rt ic ip an ts Th e In de pe nd en t B lin dn es s P ou tc om es E va lu at io n S ui ta bi lit y of fo llo w -u p fo r ou tc om es to o cc ur Lo st to fo llo w -u p ac ce pt ab le To ta l s co re Chopra et al. 201721 + + + + + - + - 6 Chen et al. 201522 + + + + + - + - 6 Park et al., 201225 + + + + ++ - + - 7 Koyama et al., 201126 + + + + + - + - 6 Lee and Kim, 201127 + + + + ++ - + - 7 +=1, +=2, -=0 Mesiodistal dental movement Molars Seven studies (two randomized controlled trials and five prospective studies) have been included. There were 46 and 95 male and female patients, with a mean age of 21.03 years, respectively, in the miniscrews group. The number of male and female patients was 50 and 91, with a mean of 21.05 years, respectively, in the traditional anchorage group. Measurement techniques in five studies were lateral cephalo- metric analysis, and in two studies17, 22 were 3D study model analysis. The mean of orthodontic space closure in the miniscrews and traditional anchorage groups was 18.24 and 20.02 months, respectively (Table 2). The mean difference of molar mesiodistal movement among seven studies and heterogeneity was -0.53 mm (MD, -0.53 95 % CI -0.69, -0.38. P= 0.00) (I2 = 96.52 %). This result shows no sig- 7 Amiri et al. nificant statistical difference between the traditional anchorage and miniscrews (p=000) (Figure 2). This result showed maximum reinforcement with fewer mesial movements in miniscrews. Incisors Six studies (one randomized controlled trial and five prospective studies) have been included. There were 35 and 79 male and female patients, with a mean age of 22.18 years, respectively, in the miniscrews group. The number of male and female patients was 31 and 84, 22.19 years, respectively, in the traditional anchorage group. Measure- ment techniques in five studies were lateral cephalometric analysis and, in one study, 22 were 3D study model analysis. The mean of orthodontic space closure in the minis- crews and traditional anchorage groups was 16.04 and 18.10 months, respectively (Table 2). The mean difference in mesiodistal incisor movement among seven stud- ies and heterogeneity found was -0.66 mm (MD, -0.66 95 % CI -0.94, -0.37. P= 0.00) (I2 = 73.76 %). No statistically significant difference between miniscrews and traditional anchorage groups (p=0.00) is shown in this result (Figure 2). In the miniscrew group, this result showed more retraction than in the traditional anchorage group. Figure 2. The Forest plot showed the Mesiodistal movement of incisors between miniscrews vs. traditional anchorage. Vertical dental movement Molars Three studies (prospective study) have been included. There were 5 and 41 male and female patients, with a mean age of 22.81 years, respectively, in the miniscrews group. The number of male and female patients was 3 and 42, with a mean of age 24.21 years, respectively, in the traditional anchorage group. Measurement tech- niques in three studies were lateral cephalometric analysis, and in one study were 3D study model analysis. The mean of orthodontic space closure in the miniscrews and traditional anchorage groups was 8.6 and 9.8 months, respectively (Table 2). Mean difference of vertical movement of molars was -0.5 mm (MD, -0.5 95% CI -1.11, 0.1. 8 Amiri et al. P= 0.1) among three studies and heterogeneity found (I2 = 92.91%). This result shows no statistically significant difference between miniscrews and traditional anchorage groups (p=0.1) (Figure 3). This result showed in the miniscrews group, maxillary molars have a higher intrusion. Figure 3. The Forest plot showed the vertical movement of molars between miniscrews vs. traditional anchorage. Incisors Four studies (prospective study) have been included. There were 11 and 50 male and female patients, with a mean age of 23.74 years, respectively, in the miniscrews group. The number of male and female patients was 10 and 52, with a mean of age 24.4 years, respectively, in the traditional anchorage group. Measurement techniques in five studies were lateral cephalometric analysis and in one study were 3D study model analysis. The mean of orthodontic space closure in the miniscrews and tradi- tional anchorage groups was 15.26 and 16.84 months, respectively (Table 2). Mean difference of vertical movement of incisors was -0.19 mm (MD, -0.19 95% CI -0.5, 0.13. P= 0.25) among four studies and heterogeneity found (I2 = 87.36%). This result shows no statistically significant difference between miniscrews and traditional anchorage groups (p=0.25) (Figure 4). This result showed better intrusion in the miniscrews group than the traditional anchorage group. Figure 4. The Forest plot showed the vertical movement of incisors between miniscrews vs. traditional anchorage. 9 Amiri et al. Discussion Many anchorage reinforcing appliances are available, but achieving the desired result and controlling the absolute anchorage during treatment bimaxillary is very import- ant and challenging. Several factors must be considered to select a suitable anchor booster. Miniscrews can enhance orthodontic anchors and have received a great deal of attention recently because they attached to the bony appendages and provided the ideal movement of only the targeted teeth20. The first part of the Meta-analysis find- ings showed maximum reinforcement in miniscrews with the fewer mesial movement of molars vs. traditional anchorage. Clinically, a reduction of 2 mm on each side can show better results. Sandler et al. study showed miniscrews were better than head- gear and Nance groups23. Meta-analysis findings showed that incisors’ mesial move- ment was more retraction in the miniscrews group than the traditional anchorage group. In molars’ vertical movement, more retraction in miniscrews than traditional anchorage and vertical movement of incisors was a better intrusion in the miniscrews group than the traditional anchorage group. Papadopoulos et al.3 evaluate the clini- cal effectiveness of miniscrew implants used for anchorage reinforcement compared with conventional anchorage. The result showed the mean difference of anchorage loss between the two groups was −2.4 mm (95% CI = −2.9 mm to −1.8 mm, p = 0), miniscrew implants significantly decreased or negated loss of anchorage3. Yao et al. showed only in the miniscrews group molar intrusion observed, thereby improving class II malocclusion. Although there are advantages to using miniscrews, some studies have shown that miniscrews cannot achieve absolute anchorage28. Horiu- chi et al. suggest that the movement of the anterior teeth using conventional anchor- ing devices depends more on the forces acting on the posterior teeth and the patient’s adaptation and is therefore, less than miniscrews29. Although numerous benefits are available for miniscrew implants, some studies have shown that miniscrew implants can not achieve absolute anchorage compared to miniplates. However, it is better than conventional anchorage, and no side effects have been reported in the included studies28. Clinically, the traditional anchorage is more suitable in some cases that require a maximum anchorage. In any case, no side effects have been reported in the included studies. A patient-reported outcome measures should be obtained from the patient better to determine treatment outcomes30,31. The limitations of the present study are low sample size, low RCT studies, high heterogeneity in the selected study. Large sample size, follow-up period, RCT, and prospective and retrospective cohort stud- ies are required in this field. It is suggested that more studies be performed for the present study. Due to the high heterogeneity between the studies and the work- ing method, a similar way of evaluating the data is required. In the present study, patients’ opinions about comfort and quality of life satisfaction with traditional anchorage and miniscrews were not reported because a study that addressed all these dimensions was not found, so the patient’s perceived benefit is not recogniz- able. However, most traditional anchorages are extraoral; they are uncomfortable for patients, which can negatively affect21. Further studies are needed to address these parameters. 10 Amiri et al. In conclusion, the present systematic review and meta-analysis show that minis- crews in patients with class II and I malocclusion help maintain better anchorage preservation than traditional anchorage devices. Miniscrews can also reduce anchor- age loss by minimization of molar mesial movement. References 1. Batista KB, Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison JE, O’Brien KD. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Mar;3(3):CD003452. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003452.pub4. 2. Khela S, Newton JT, Jeremiah HG. The effect of malocclusion on dating prospects. J Orthod. 2020 Mar;47(1):30-7. doi: 10.1177/1465312519888926. 3. Papadopoulos MA, Papageorgiou SN, Zogakis IP. Clinical effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2011 Aug;90(8):969-76. doi: 10.1177/0022034511409236. 4. Tak M, Nagarajappa R, Sharda AJ, Asawa K, Tak A, Jalihal S, et al. Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment needs among 12-15 years old school children of Udaipur, India. Eur J Dent. 2013 Sep;7(Suppl 1):S045-53. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.119071. 5. Sanadhya S, Chadha M, Chaturvedi MK, Chaudhary M, Lerra S, Meena MK, et al. Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment needs among 12-15-year-old schoolchildren of fishermen of Kutch coast, Gujarat, India. Int Marit Health. 2014;65(3):106-13. doi: 10.5603/IMH.2014.0023. 6. Liu Y, Yang ZJ, Zhou J, Xiong P, Wang Q, Yang Y,et al. Comparison of anchorage efficiency of orthodontic mini-implant and conventional anchorage reinforcement in patients requiring maximum orthodontic anchorage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2020 Jun;20(2):101401. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2020.101401. 7. Kuroda S, Yamada K, Deguchi T, Kyung HM, Takano-Yamamoto T. Class II malocclusion treated with miniscrew anchorage: comparison with traditional orthodontic mechanics outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Mar;135(3):302-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.038. 8. Becker K, Pliska A, Busch C, Wilmes B, Wolf M, Drescher D. Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2018 Oct;4(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4. 9. Sfondrini MF, Gandini P, Alcozer R, Vallittu PK, Scribante A. Failure load and stress analysis of orthodontic miniscrews with different transmucosal collar diameter. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018 Nov;87:132-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.07.032. 10. Jing Z, Wu Y, Jiang W, Zhao L, Jing D, Zhang N, et al. Factors affecting the clinical success rate of miniscrew implants for orthodontic treatment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Jul-Aug;31(4):835-41. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4197. 11. Yeke W, Ranran G, Yuling Z, Jianfeng Y, Lixing Z, Wenhan N, et al., Factors affecting the clinical success rate of miniscrew implants for orthodontic treatment. Chin J Tissue Eng Res. 2020;24(4):538-43. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.1925. 12. Mizrahi E. The Use of Miniscrews in Orthodontics: a Review of Selected Clinical Applications. Prim Dent J. 2016 Nov;5(4):20-7. doi: 10.1308/205016816820209569. 13. Magkavali-Trikka P, Emmanouilidis G, Papadopoulos MA. Mandibular molar uprighting using orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review. Prog Orthod. 2018 Jan;19(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s40510-017-0200-2. 11 Amiri et al. 14. Park JJ, Park YC, Lee KJ, Cha JY, Tahk JH, Choi YJ. Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes after miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion in young adults: A cone-beam computed tomography study. Korean J Orthod. 2017 Mar;47(2):77-86. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.2.77. 15. Liu H, Lv T, Wang NN, Zhao F, Wang KT, Liu DX. Drift characteristics of miniscrews and molars for anchorage under orthodontic force: 3-dimensional computed tomography registration evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Jan;139(1):e83-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.07.018. 16. Chen Y, Liu D. Morphologic evaluation of root resorption after miniscrew assisted en mass retraction in adult bialveolar protrusion patients. Head Face Med. 2020 Jul 27;16(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s13005-020-00229-z. 17. Barthélemi S, Desoutter A, Souaré F, Cuisinier F. Effectiveness of anchorage with temporary anchorage devices during anterior maxillary tooth retraction: A randomized clinical trial. Korean J Orthod. 2019 Sep;49(5):279-85. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2019.49.5.279. 18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. 19. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928. 20. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 Sep;25(9):603-5. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z. 21. Chopra SS, Mukherjee M, Mitra R, Kochar GD, Kadu A. Comparative evaluation of anchorage reinforcement between orthodontic implants and conventional anchorage in orthodontic management of bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Med J Armed Forces India. 2017 Apr;73(2):159-66. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.01.003. 22. Chen M, Li ZM, Liu X, Cai B, Wang DW, Feng ZC. Differences of treatment outcomes between self- ligating brackets with microimplant and headgear anchorages in adults with bimaxillary protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Apr;147(4):465-71. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.029. 23. Sandler J, Murray A, Thiruvenkatachari B, Gutierrez R, Speight P, O’Brien K. Effectiveness of 3 methods of anchorage reinforcement for maximum anchorage in adolescents: A 3-arm multicenter randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Jul;146(1):10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.03.020. 24. Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2014 Jun;36(3):275-83. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjt046. 25. Park HM, Kim BH, Yang IH, Baek SH. Preliminary three-dimensional analysis of tooth movement and arch dimension change of the maxillary dentition in Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with first premolar extraction: conventional anchorage vs. mini-implant anchorage. Korean J Orthod. 2012 Dec;42(6):280-90. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2012.42.6.280. 26. Koyama I, Iino S, Abe Y, Takano-Yamamoto T, Miyawaki S. Differences between sliding mechanics with implant anchorage and straight-pull headgear and intermaxillary elastics in adults with bimaxillary protrusion. Eur J Orthod. 2011 Apr;33(2):126-31. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq047. 27. Lee AY, Kim YH. Comparison of Movement of the Upper Dentition According to Anchorage Method: Orthodontic Mini-Implant versus Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Class I Malocclusion. ISRN Dent. 2011;2011:321206. doi: 10.5402/2011/321206. 28. Consolaro A. Mini-implants and miniplates generate sub-absolute and absolute anchorage. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014 May-Jun;19(3):20-3. doi: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.3.020-023.oin. 12 Amiri et al. 29. Horiuchi A, Hotokezaka H, Kobayashi K. Correlation between cortical plate proximity and apical root resorption. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Sep;114(3):311-8. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70214-8. 30. Hujoel PP. Levels of clinical significance. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2004;1(4):32-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2004.02.012. 31. Feu D, Miguel JA, Celeste RK, Oliveira BH. Effect of orthodontic treatment on oral health-related quality of life. Angle Orthod. 2013 Sep;83(5):892-8. doi: 10.2319/100412-781.1