Abstract
The objectives of this review were to evaluate the currently available evidence regarding the effectiveness of surgical versus non-surgical acceleration methods and the side effects associated with these methods. Nine databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE(®), Scopus(®), PubMed(®), Web of Science™, Google™ Scholar, Trip, OpenGrey, and PQDT OPEN from pro-Quest(®). ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP) were screened to explore ongoing studies and unpublished literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of patients who received surgical interventions (invasive or minimally invasive techniques) in conjunction with traditional fixed appliances and who were compared to the non-surgical interventions, were included. The Cochrane tool for risk of bias (RoB.2) was used for evaluating RCTs, whereas the ROBINS-I tool was used for the CCTs. This systematic review included four RCTs and two CCTs (154 patients). The surgical and non-surgical interventions were found to have the same effect on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) accelerating in four trials. In contrast, the surgical interventions were superior in the other two studies. High heterogeneity among the included studies prevented conducting the quantitative synthesis of the findings. The reported side effects related to the surgical and non-surgical interventions were similar. A "very low" to "low" evidence indicates that the effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical interventions in the acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement is similar, with no differences in the associated side effects. More high-quality clinical trials to compare the acceleration effectiveness between both modalities in different types of malocclusion is required.