Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction: The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effects of lip bumper therapy on
mandibular arch dimensions. Methods: A literature survey of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (www.cochrane.org) was conducted from December 1968 to
January 2007. Human studies, randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies, and studies
discussing the effect of lip bumpers on the arch and teeth were included. Two reviewers independently
selected and extracted the data. Results: Of the 52 studies found in the search, only 1 met the inclusion
criteria. Conclusions: The results showed increases in arch dimensions that included an increase in arch
length. This was attributed to incisor proclination, distalization, and distal tipping of the molars. There was
also an increase in the arch width seen in the intercanine and deciduous intermolar and premolar distances.
The long-term stability of the effects of the lip bumper need to be elucidated. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2009;135:106-9)
I
n the extraction vs nonextraction debate, there has MATERIAL AND METHODS
been growing interest in nonextraction modalities To identify all studies about the effect of LBs, a
of treatment. The lip bumper (LB) can be used in computer search was conducted of PubMed (http://
nonextraction patients. The primary purposes of an LB www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez), EMBASE, Cochrane
have been to reduce mandibular anterior crowding,1-6 Central, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
and to increase arch width and length.1,2,4,7-12 It has from December 1968 to January 2007. The terms used in
also been claimed that an LB maintains the position of literature search were “lip bumper, arch length, arch
the first molar and leeway space through molar anchor- width, arch dimension, arch circumference, arch depth,
age.1,3,5,6,9-11,13 incisor proclination, lip sucking, lip habits, and orth-
Several studies have discussed the effects of the odontics.” The following journals was searched sepa-
LB.1-18 Systematic reviews, the backbone of evidence- rately to locate any missing articles from the PubMed
based dentistry, are designed not only to identify all search: Angle Orthodontist, American Journal of Orth-
relevant information in the literature, but also to eval- odontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Journal of
uate the quality of the information and then, if possible, Orthodontics, and European Journal of Orthodontics.
to summarize the results from the strongest (or least
biased) studies.19 Therefore, it seemed important to RESULTS
conduct a systematic review to interpret the results of
Our first step was to identify eligible studies based
LB studies.
on their titles and abstracts; we found 52 abstracts.
In this study, many sources were systematically
When we compared the separate searches of the previ-
searched, assessed, and evaluated to answer the follow-
ously mentioned journals with the PubMed search, we
ing question: what are the effects of the LB on
found no missing articles. The 52 studies were in-
mandibular arch dimensions (length, width, and perim-
cluded. The second step was to apply our inclusion and
eter) in adolescents compared with untreated patients?
exclusion criteria to each study.
From the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Faculty of Human studies, randomized clinical trials, prospec-
Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
a
Resident. tive and retrospective studies, studies discussing the
b
Professor and chairperson. effect of lip bumpers on the arch and teeth, and those in
Reprint requests to: Yehya A. Mostafa, Department of Orthodontics and English were included. Excluded articles were mainly
Dentofacial Orthopedics, Cairo University, Faculty of Dentistry, P.O. Box 60,
Mina Garden Post Office, October City, Cairo 12582, Egypt; e-mail, animal studies, case reports, case series, review articles,
mangoury@usa.net. abstracts, in-vitro studies, discussions and interviews,
Submitted, June 2007; revised and accepted, October 2007. articles in a language other than English, and those that
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright © 2009 by the American Association of Orthodontists. did not follow the objective of this review. The selec-
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.038 tion was made by 2 researchers separately (made by the
106
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Hashish and Mostafa 107
Volume 135, Number 1
the effects correctly, making it clear that the LB can Arch width
increase arch dimensions and contribute to crowding Davidovitch et al1 found that untreated subjects had
relief in mixed dentition. reductions in transverse dimensions between the decid-
In this prospective study, to separate any influence uous second molars (⫺0.33 ⫾ 0.67 mm) and the
of other simultaneous treatment, the LB was the only permanent canines (⫺0.25 ⫾ 0.92 mm). Those treated
therapy used to affect the mandibular arch directly. The for 6 months with an LB showed an increase in arch
tools used to measure specific tooth movement were
width between the second deciduous molars (⫹1.83 ⫾
also evaluated. All data were analyzed independently
1.32 mm) and the permanent canines (⫹1.80 ⫾ 0.41
by 2 observers to compare interobserver reliability and
mm). Osborn et al5 found average increases in inter-
the efficacy of the radiographic imaging techniques
molar width and widths at the first and second premo-
used.
lars of 1.92, 2.5, and 2.43 mm, respectively.
To elucidate the true effects of LB for increasing
There was no correlation between the mean changes
the arch dimensions, the following discussion is di-
in arch length and length of treatment. Cetlin and Ten
vided into 3 subheads to determine the contributing
Hoeve12 indicated that the increase in arch width was
factors for increasing arch length.
the primary cause of increased arch circumference. The
Molar distalization increases in arch width at the molars and first premolars
were 5.5 and 4 mm, respectively. Nevant et al4 reported
Davidovitch et al1 reported that quantification of
the expansion to be 2.09 mm at the first premolars,
molar movement is related to the imaging technique
used. Although cephalometric data showed no statisti- whereas Grossen and Ingervall10 measured the expan-
cal differences in molar position between the experi- sion at 2.1 and 2.2 mm at the first and second premo-
mental and control subjects, significant treatment ef- lars, respectively.
fects were deterined by tomographic measurements. All Werner et al11 showed significant increases
treated subjects had distal (negative) molar tipping, throughout the arch but most notably at the second
regardless of the radiographic technique used for data premolars (average, 4.1 mm). Hasler and Ingervall9
gathering. However, quantitative differences in this found the main effect of the maxillary LB to be
movement were noted between the radiographic imag- widening of the arch at the interpremolar area, and the
ing techniques. Tomographic data (⫺6.31° ⫾ 1.28°) intermolar and intercanine changes were negligible.
showed approximately twice the angulation changes Murphy et al8 found that 50% of the total expansion
as measured from lateral cephalometric radiographs occurred within about the first 100 days, and 90% of the
(⫺3.38° ⫾ 3.67°). total expansion was achieved during the first 300 days,
Anteroposterior changes in molar position were making it unnecessary to leave the appliance in place
statistically different for treated vs untreated subjects for longer than 300 days. However, the authors did not
when compared tomographically (⫺1.66 ⫾ 0.53 mm determine whether this increase was due to growth or
and ⫹0.65 ⫾ 0.59 mm, respectively), with a negative LB therapy.
sign indicating distal movement. No significant differ- Ferris et al2 reported that intercanine width in-
ence was found in comparisons with the cephalometric creased the least (1.37 ⫾ 1.7 mm) and inter-first
data. premolar width increased the most (4.7 ⫾ 2.6 mm).
Bergersen6 reported that 95% of the patients Moin and Bishara7 found the greatest mean expansions
showed distalization that depended on the number of at the first (5.0 ⫾ 2.2 mm) and second (3.4 ⫾ 2.2 mm)
days that the LB was used and number of times that it premolar widths.
was linearly advanced from the molars from both sides. From this, it is evident that an important contribut-
The patients who had 50 days of LB treatment showed ing factor to arch length increase by the LB is the
0.853 mm of distalization, and those who had more increase in arch width in the buccal segment. There is
than 50 days of LB treatment showed 1.00 mm of a need to quantify the amount of width increase in
distalization. In patients without LB advancement, the relation to the total increase in arch length.
molars moved 0.78 mm distally. Patients had a mean of
1.49 mm of lip bumper advancement, and the molars
Incisor proclination
moved 1.00 mm distally. Subtelny and Sakuda13
showed 88% distalization. Osborn et al5 and Grossen Davidovitch et al1 repoted that treated subjects had
and Ingervall10 found minimal posterior movement of an angular change in incisor inclination nearly 6 times
the molars, whereas O’Donnell et al3 found 0.95 mm of greater (3.19° ⫾ 2.40°) than did the untreated subjects
distal movement of the first molars. (0.5° ⫾ 1.7°). Anteroposterior changes in incisor posi-
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Hashish and Mostafa 109
Volume 135, Number 1
tion measured as movement of the apex did not differ 2. Ferris T, Alexander RG, Boley J, Buschang PH. Long-term
significantly between the 2 groups. stability of combined rapid palatal expansion-lip bumper therapy
followed by full fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Bergersen6 reported forward migration of the man-
Orthop 2005;128:310-25.
dibular incisors in 95% of the subjects. There was no 3. O’Donnell S, Nanda RS, Ghosh J. Perioral forces and dental
significant correlation between the time that the LB was changes resulting from mandibular lip bumper treatment. Am J
placed or the linear advancement and the forward Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:247-55.
movement. In 78 days, the average movement was 1.45 4. Nevant CT, Buschang PH, Alexander RG, Steffen JM. Lip
mm. Osborn et al5 reported that the mean increase in bumper therapy for gaining arch length. Am J Orthod Dentofa-
arch length of 1.2 mm was largely attributed to anterior cial Orthop 1991;100:330-6.
5. Osborn WS, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Mandibular arch perimeter
tipping of the mandibular incisors in 78% of the
changes with lip bumper treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
subjects. These results were similar to those of Nevant Orthop 1991;99:527-32.
et al,4 Grossen and Ingervall,10 and O’Donnell et al.3 6. Bergersen EO. A cephalometric study of the clinical use of the
Hasler and Ingervall9 found that incisor proclination mandibular labial bumper. Am J Orthod 1972;61:578-602.
was not significant (1.4°). 7. Moin K, Bishara SE. An evaluation of buccal shield treatment:
With the limitations of available studies and total a clinical and cephalometric study. Angle Orthod 2007;77:
samples for this systematic review, we can state that the 57-63.
8. Murphy CC, Magness, English JD, Frazier-Bowers SA, Salas
LB is an effective appliance for increasing arch dimen-
AM. A longitudinal study of incremental expansion using a
sions in the mixed dentition. All studies agreed that it has mandibular lip bumper. Angle Orthod 2003;73:396-400.
a positive effect on the arch. According to Davidovitch et 9. Hasler R, Ingervall B. The effect of a maxillary lip bumper on
al,1 the perimeter increase was caused by angular and tooth position. Eur J Orthod 2000;22:25-32.
linear changes of molar position, passive increases in 10. Grossen J, Ingervall B. The effect of a lip bumper on lower
mandibular arch transverse dimensions, and incisor pro- dental arch dimensions and tooth position. Eur J Orthod 1995;
17:129-34.
clination. Molar movement and transverse increases were
11. Werner SP, Shivapuja PK, Harris EF. Skeletodental changes in
found to contribute as much, if not more, to increased arch the adolescent accruing from use of the lip bumper. Angle
perimeter as did incisor proclination. Orthod 1994;64:13-22.
12. Cetlin NM, Ten Hoeve A. Nonextraction treatment. J Clin
CONCLUSIONS Orthod 1983;17:396-413.
In this systematic review, we discussed the effects 13. Subtelny JD, Sakuda M. Muscle function, oral malformation and
of LB treatment. The key question was “what are the growth changes. Am J Orthod 1966;52:495-517.
14. Solomon MJ, English JD, Magness WB, Mckee CJ. Long term
effects of the LB on mandibular arch dimensions in
stability of lip bumper therapy followed by fixed appliances.
adolescents compared with untreated patients?” Our Angle Orthod 2006;76:36-42.
results showed increases in arch dimensions that in- 15. Waring DT, Pender N, Counihan D. Mandibular arch changes
cluded an increase in arch length. This was attributed to following non extraction treatment. Aust Orthod J 2005;21:
incisor proclination, distalization, and distal tipping of 111-6.
the molars. There were also increases in arch width and 16. Ferro F, Perillo L, Ferro A. Non extraction short-term arch
intercanine and deciduous intermolar or premolar dis- changes. Prog Orthod 2004;5:18-43.
17. Vanarsdall RL, Secchi AG, Chung CH, Katz SH. Mandibular
tances. The long-term stability of the effects of the LB
basal structure response to lip bumper treatment in the transverse
need to be elucidated. dimension. Angle Orthod 2004;74:473-9.
18. Sankey WL, Buschang PH, English J, Owen AH. Early treatment
REFERENCES of vertical skeletal dysplasia: the hyperdivergent phenotype.
1. Davidovitch M, McInnis D, Lindauer SJ. The effect of lip Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:317-27.
bumper therapy in mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial 19. Bader J, Ismail A. Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry.
Orthop 1997;111:52-8. Am J Dent Assoc 2004;135:464-73.