Objectives. We aimed to summarize the current evidence regarding the impact of extraction vs. nonextraction in orthodontic treatment on patients’ soft-tissue profile with malocclusion. Methods. Between April 30^th and November 30^th, 2020, we searched PubMed and SCOPUS for published papers from inception to November 2020 using “orthodontic,” “extraction,” “nonextraction,” and “Malocclusion.” Included studies were summarized, and relevant data were extracted and analyzed using Review Manager 5.4. Results. Pooled data from four controlled trials demonstrated a nonsignificant difference between extraction and nonextraction in terms of SNA (, 95% CI: -0.37, 1.38; ), SNB (, 95% CI: -1.23, 1.44; ), FMA (, 95% CI: -2.39, 6.02; ), IMPA (, 95% CI: -8.83, -8.94; ), overjet (, 95% CI: -6.21, 3.26; ), and overbite (, 95% CI: -1.40, 2.40; ). On the other hand, the extraction method significantly increased the ANB compared with the nonextraction group (, 95% CI: 0.25, 1.31; ). Conclusion. The current evidence demonstrated that nonextraction protocols for orthodontic treatment are a safe and effective alternative to extraction protocols; individually tailored treatment strategies should be applied. More randomized controlled trials are critically needed to safely make an evidence-based treatment conclusion.

中文翻译：

---

拔牙与非拔牙对错牙合患者软组织轮廓变化的影响：系统评价和荟萃分析

目标。我们旨在总结目前关于正畸治疗中拔牙与不拔牙对咬合不正患者软组织轮廓影响的证据。方法。在 2020 年 4 月 30^日至 11 月 30 日期间，我们使用“正畸”、“拔牙”、“非拔牙”和“咬合不正”搜索了 PubMed 和 SCOPUS 从开始到 2020 年 11 月发表的论文^。对纳入的研究进行了总结，并使用 Review Manager 5.4 提取和分析了相关数据。结果。来自四项对照试验的汇总数据表明，在 SNA 方面，提取和不提取之间没有显着差异（, 95% CI: -0.37, 1.38;),瑞士央行 (, 95% CI: -1.23, 1.44;), FMA (, 95% CI: -2.39, 6.02;), IMPA (, 95% CI: -8.83, -8.94;),覆盖 (, 95% CI: -6.21, 3.26;)和覆咬合 (, 95% CI: -1.40, 2.40;）。另一方面，与非提取组相比，提取方法显着增加了ANB（, 95% CI: 0.25, 1.31;）。 结论。目前的证据表明，正畸治疗的非拔牙方案是拔牙方案的一种安全有效的替代方案；应采用个体化的治疗策略。迫切需要更多的随机对照试验来安全地得出基于证据的治疗结论。