Perceptions of undertaking a higher degree alongside dental specialty training: A cross-sectional survey of UK dental specialty trainees.

INTRODUCTION: The curricula for UK dental specialty training have recently been under review and until 2024, completion of a research component during training in Dental Public Health, Oral Microbiology and Orthodontics has been mandatory (with an alternative route for Orthodontics involving the submission of two scientific papers for those trainees not wishing to undertake a higher degree). Anecdotally, some trainees in other dental specialties choose to undertake higher degrees alongside specialty training. AIMS: The aims were to investigate how many dental specialty registrars study for higher degrees alongside specialty training, and whether undertaking a higher degree alongside specialty training has an impact on completion of training, research skills, research experience, patient care and career opportunities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study design, involving the distribution of an online, anonymous questionnaire-based survey to UK dental specialty registrars in November and December 2022. RESULTS: In total, 38 questionnaires were completed, representing a 7.7% response rate of the entire dental specialty registrar cohort in the UK and 42% of those who received it. Most respondents (76.3%) were either studying or had completed a clinically relevant higher degree prior to specialty training. Most respondents (76.3%) reported that the higher degree increased career opportunities and gave them additional skills. CONCLUSIONS: Dental specialty trainees who responded to this survey perceived the higher degree to be beneficial in terms of preparing for exams, gaining skills in critical appraisal and for increasing future career opportunities.

Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children.

BACKGROUND: Prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) may be due to jaw or tooth position or both. The upper jaw (maxilla) can be too far back or the lower jaw (mandible) too far forward; the upper front teeth (incisors) may be tipped back or the lower front teeth tipped forwards. Orthodontic treatment uses different types of braces (appliances) fitted inside or outside the mouth (or both) and fixed to the teeth. A facemask is the most commonly reported non-surgical intervention used to correct Class III malocclusion. The facemask rests on the forehead and chin, and is connected to the upper teeth via an expansion appliance (known as 'rapid maxillary expansion' (RME)). Using elastic bands placed by the wearer, a force is applied to the top teeth and jaw to pull them forwards and downward. Some orthodontic interventions involve a surgical component; these go through the gum into the bone (e.g. miniplates). In severe cases, or if orthodontic treatment is unsuccessful, people may need jaw (orthognathic) surgery as adults. This review updates one published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases and two trial registries up to 16 January 2023. Review authors screened reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adolescents (16 years of age or under) randomised to receive orthodontic treatment to correct prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion), or no (or delayed) treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was overjet (i.e. prominence of the lower front teeth); our secondary outcomes included ANB (A point, nasion, B point) angle (which measures the relative position of the maxilla to the mandible). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 29 RCTs that randomised 1169 children (1102 analysed). The children were five to 13 years old at the start of treatment. Most studies measured outcomes directly after treatment; only one study provided long-term follow-up. All studies were at high risk of bias as participant and personnel blinding was not possible. Non-surgical orthodontic treatment versus untreated control We found moderate-certainty evidence that non-surgical orthodontic treatments provided a substantial improvement in overjet (mean difference (MD) 5.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.81 to 6.25; 4 studies, 184 participants) and ANB (MD 3.05°, 95% CI 2.40 to 3.71; 8 studies, 345 participants), compared to an untreated control group, when measured immediately after treatment. There was high heterogeneity in the analyses, but the effects were consistently in favour of the orthodontic treatment groups rather than the untreated control groups (studies tested facemask (with or without RME), chin cup, orthodontic removable traction appliance, tandem traction bow appliance, reverse Twin Block with lip pads and RME, Reverse Forsus and mandibular headgear). Longer-term outcomes were measured in only one study, which evaluated facemask. It presented low-certainty evidence that improvements in overjet and ANB were smaller at 3-year follow-up than just after treatment (overjet MD 2.5 mm, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.79; ANB MD 1.4°, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.37; 63 participants), and were not found at 6-year follow-up (overjet MD 1.30 mm, 95% CI -0.16 to 2.76; ANB MD 0.7°, 95% CI -0.74 to 2.14; 65 participants). In the same study, at the 6-year follow-up, clinicians made an assessment of whether surgical correction of participants' jaw position was likely to be needed in the future. A perceived need for surgical correction was observed more often in participants who had not received facemask treatment (odds ratio (OR) 3.34, 95% CI 1.21 to 9.24; 65 participants; low-certainty evidence). Surgical orthodontic treatment versus untreated control One study of 30 participants evaluated surgical miniplates, with facemask or Class III elastics, against no treatment, and found a substantial improvement in overjet (MD 7.96 mm, 95% CI 6.99 to 8.40) and ANB (MD 5.20°, 95% CI 4.48 to 5.92; 30 participants). However, the evidence was of low certainty, and there was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment. Facemask versus another non-surgical orthodontic treatment Eight studies compared facemask or modified facemask (with or without RME) to another non-surgical orthodontic treatment. Meta-analysis did not suggest that other treatments were superior; however, there was high heterogeneity, with mixed, uncertain findings (very low-certainty evidence). Facemask versus surgically-anchored appliance There may be no advantage of adding surgical anchorage to facemasks for ANB (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.07; 4 studies, 143 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for overjet was of very low certainty (MD -0.40 mm, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.50; 1 study, 43 participants). Facemask variations Adding RME to facemask treatment may have no additional benefit for ANB (MD -0.15°, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.64; 2 studies, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for overjet was of low certainty (MD 1.86 mm, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.33; 1 study, 31 participants). There may be no benefit in terms of effect on ANB of alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction compared to using expansion alone (MD -0.46°, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.10; 4 studies, 131 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence showed that non-surgical orthodontic treatments (which included facemask, reverse Twin Block, orthodontic removable traction appliance, chin cup, tandem traction bow appliance and mandibular headgear) improved the bite and jaw relationship immediately post-treatment. Low-certainty evidence showed surgical orthodontic treatments were also effective. One study measured longer-term outcomes and found that the benefit from facemask was reduced three years after treatment, and appeared to be lost by six years. However, participants receiving facemask treatment were judged by clinicians to be less likely to need jaw surgery in adulthood. We have low confidence in these findings and more studies are required to reach reliable conclusions. Orthodontic treatment for Class III malocclusion can be invasive, expensive and time-consuming, so future trials should include measurement of adverse effects and patient satisfaction, and should last long enough to evaluate whether orthodontic treatment in childhood avoids the need for jaw surgery in adulthood.

How well do orthodontic RCTs comply with CONSORT guidelines?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the changes in compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in four orthodontic journals. To assess whether reporting of randomization, concealment, and blinding has improved. METHODS: Electronic hand searching was undertaken to identify orthodontic RCTs published in four orthodontic journals from January 2016 to June 2017 (T1) and from January 2019 to June 2020 (T2). The journals were the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (AJO-DO), Angle Orthodontist (AO), European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), and Journal of Orthodontics (JO). Each item on the CONSORT checklist was scored as either reported, not reported, or not applicable for each paper reporting an RCT. RESULTS: The study included 69 papers reporting an RCT published in T1 and 64 RCTs published in T2. The median CONSORT score in T1 was 48.7% (interquartile range [IQR] 27.6%, 68.6%) and 67% in T2 (IQR 43.9%, 79.5%). This increase was statistically significant (P = 0.001) and largely attributable to improved reporting in AO (P = 0.016) and EJO (P = 0.023). Reporting did not change significantly in AJO-DO (P = 0.13) or in JO (P = 1.0). Reporting of random allocation sequence generation (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.01, 4.29) and concealment of allocation (OR 2.27%, 95% CI 1.12, 4.57) were significantly higher in T2 compared with T1. Reporting of blinding did not change significantly. CONCLUSION: Overall reporting of CONSORT items in reports of orthodontic RCTs published in the AJO-DO, AO, EJO, and JO, improved significantly from 2016-17 to 2019-20. This could be improved further by authors, journal referees, and editors adhering to the guidelines.

Diversity of authors in the British Journal of Orthodontics and Journal of Orthodontics over the last 50 years.

AIMS: To explore any changes in the perceived gender and affiliation of first authors of papers published in the British Journal of Orthodontics (BJO) and Journal of Orthodontics (JO), over the last 50 years. METHODS: Electronic hand searches of the BJO and JO from 1973 to 2021, were undertaken to identify research and clinical papers published the first volume of the BJO (1973-74) and then the first two volumes of each subsequent decade i.e. 1980-81; 1990-91 to 2020-21. Articles such as Editorials, Product Updates and Abstract summaries, were excluded.The perceived gender of the first author was identified from their forename, internet sources and/or personal knowledge, where possible. The country of the first author's affiliation was identified from the author details stated in the papers. The countries were then grouped into geographical areas. RESULTS: A total of 385 papers were identified with a steady increase from 1973 to 2021. There was a statistically significant increase in papers published by authors who were perceived to be female (odds ratio 8.33; 95% CI 4.75, 14.64). The increase in papers published by non-UK affiliated first authors was significant (odds ratio 5.01; 95% CI 2.78, 9.02). CONCLUSIONS: The Journal has seen a significant change, over the last 50 years, in its authorship profile from nearly exclusively male, UK based authors to more than 60% of published papers having a first author who was perceived as being female and 37% originating from outside the UK.

Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children.

BACKGROUND: Crowded teeth develop when there is not enough space in the jaws into which the teeth can erupt. Crowding can affect baby teeth (deciduous dentititon), adult teeth (permanent dentition), or both, and is a common reason for referral to an orthodontist. Crowded teeth can affect a child's self-esteem and quality of life. Early loss of baby teeth as a result of tooth decay or trauma, can lead to crowded permanent teeth. Crowding tends to increase with age, especially in the lower jaw. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic intervention for preventing or correcting crowded teeth in children. To test the null hypothesis that there are no differences in outcomes between different orthodontic interventions for preventing or correcting crowded teeth in children. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 11 January 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any active interventions to prevent or correct dental crowding in children and adolescents, such as orthodontic braces or extractions, compared to no or delayed treatment, placebo treatment or another active intervention. The studies had to include at least 80% of participants aged 16 years and under. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, independently and in duplicate, extracted information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms and results. We resolved any disagreements by liaising with a third review author. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We calculated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We undertook meta-analysis when studies of similar comparisons reported comparable outcome measures, using the random-effects model. We used the I2 statistic as a measure of statistical heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified 24 RCTs that included 1512 participants, 1314 of whom were included in analyses. We assessed 23 studies as being at high risk of bias and one as unclear.  The studies investigated 17 comparisons. Twenty studies evaluated fixed appliances and auxiliaries (lower lingual arch, lower lip bumper, brackets, archwires, lacebacks, headgear and adjunctive vibrational appliances); two studies evaluated removable appliances and auxiliaries (Schwarz appliance, eruption guidance appliance); and two studies evaluated dental extractions (lower deciduous canines or third molars). The evidence should be interpreted cautiously as it is of very low certainty. Most interventions were evaluated by a single study. Fixed appliances and auxiliaries One study found that use of a lip bumper may reduce crowding in the early permanent dentition (MD -4.39 mm, 95% CI -5.07 to -3.71; 34 participants). One study evaluated lower lingual arch but did not measure amount of crowding. One study concluded that coaxial nickel-titanium (NiTi) archwires may cause more tooth movement in the lower arch than single-stranded NiTi archwires (MD 6.77 mm, 95% CI 5.55 to 7.99; 24 participants). Another study, comparing copper NiTi versus NiTi archwires, found NiTi to be more effective for reducing crowding (MD 0.49 mm, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63, 66 participants). Single studies did not show evidence of one type of archwire being better than another for Titinol versus Nitinol; nickel-titanium versus stainless steel or multistrand stainless steel; and multistranded stainless steel versus stainless steel.  Nor did single studies find evidence of a difference in amount of crowding between self-ligating and conventional brackets, active and passive self-ligating brackets, lacebacks added to fixed appliances versus fixed appliances alone, or cervical pull headgear versus minor interceptive procedures. Meta-analysis of two studies showed no evidence that adding vibrational appliances to fixed appliances reduces crowding at 8 to 10 weeks (MD 0.24 mm, 95% CI -0.81 to 1.30; 119 participants). Removable appliances and auxiliaries One study found use of the Schwarz appliance may be effective at treating dental crowding in the lower arch (MD -2.14 mm, 95% CI -2.79 to -1.49; 28 participants). Another study found an eruption guidance appliance may reduce the number of children with crowded teeth after one year of treatment (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.68; 46 participants); however, this may have been due to an increase in lower incisor proclination in the treated group. Whether these gains were maintained in the longer term was not assessed. Dental extractions One study found that extracting children's lower deciduous canines had more effect on crowding after one year than no treatment (MD -4.76 mm, 95 CI -6.24 to -3.28; 83 participants), but this was alongside a reduction in arch length. One study found that extracting wisdom teeth did not seem to reduce crowding any more than leaving them in the mouth (MD -0.30 mm, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.70; 77 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most interventions were assessed by single, small studies. We found very low-certainty evidence that lip bumper, used in the mixed dentition, may be effective for preventing crowding in the early permanent dentition, and a Schwarz appliance may reduce crowding in the lower arch. We also found very low-certainty evidence that coaxial NiTi may be better at reducing crowding than single-stranded NiTi, and that NiTi may be better than copper NiTi. As the current evidence is of very low certainty, our findings may change with future research.

Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites.

BACKGROUND: A posterior crossbite occurs when the top back teeth bite inside the bottom back teeth. The prevalence of posterior crossbite is around 4% and 17% of children and adolescents in Europe and America, respectively. Several treatments have been recommended to correct this problem, which is related to such dental issues as tooth attrition, abnormal development of the jaws, joint problems, and imbalanced facial appearance. Treatments involve expanding the upper jaw with an orthodontic appliance, which can be fixed (e.g. quad-helix) or removable (e.g. expansion plate). This is the third update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different orthodontic treatments for posterior crossbites. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 8 April 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites in children and adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, independently and in duplicate, screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. A third review author participated to resolve disagreements. We used risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarise dichotomous data (event), unless there were zero values in trial arms, in which case we used odds ratios (ORs). We used mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs to summarise continuous data. We performed meta-analyses using fixed-effect models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 studies that randomised approximately 1410 participants. Eight studies were at low risk of bias, 15 were at high risk of bias, and eight were unclear. Intervention versus observation For children (age 7 to 11 years), quad-helix was beneficial for posterior crossbite correction compared to observation (OR 50.59, 95% CI 26.77 to 95.60; 3 studies, 149 participants; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in higher final inter-molar distances (MD 4.71 mm, 95% CI 4.31 to 5.10; 3 studies, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For children, expansion plates were also beneficial for posterior crossbite correction compared to observation (OR 25.26, 95% CI 13.08 to 48.77; 3 studies, 148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in higher final inter-molar distances (MD 3.30 mm, 95% CI 2.88 to 3.73; 3 studies, 145 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, expansion plates resulted in higher inter-canine distances (MD 2.59 mm, 95% CI 2.18 to 3.01; 3 studies, 145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of Hyrax is probably effective for correcting posterior crossbite compared to observation (OR 48.02, 95% CI 21.58 to 106.87; 93 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Two of the studies focused on adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) and found that Hyrax increased the inter-molar distance compared with observation (MD 5.80, 95% CI 5.15 to 6.45; 2 studies, 72 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Intervention A versus intervention B When comparing quad-helix with expansion plates in children, quad-helix was more effective for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 3 studies, 151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), final inter-molar distance (MD 1.48 mm, 95% CI 0.91 mm to 2.04 mm; 3 studies, 151 participants; high-certainty evidence), inter-canine distance (0.59 mm higher (95% CI 0.09 mm  to 1.08 mm; 3 studies, 151 participants; low-certainty evidence) and length of treatment (MD -3.15 months, 95% CI -4.04 to -2.25; 3 studies, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax and Haas for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.18; 3 studies, 83 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.15 mm, 95% CI -0.86 mm to 0.56 mm; 2 studies of adolescents, 46 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax and tooth-bone-borne expansion for crossbite correction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 120 participants; low-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.66 mm, 95% CI -1.36 mm to 0.04 mm; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 65 participants; low-certainty evidence).  There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax with bone-borne expansion for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; I² = 0%; 2 studies of adolescents, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.14 mm, 95% CI -0.85 mm to 0.57 mm; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For children in the early mixed dentition stage (age 7 to 11 years old), quad-helix and expansion plates are more beneficial than no treatment for correcting posterior crossbites. Expansion plates also increase the inter-canine distance. Quad-helix is more effective than expansion plates for correcting posterior crossbite and increasing inter-molar distance. Treatment duration is shorter with quad-helix than expansion plates. For adolescents in permanent dentition (age 12 to 16 years old), Hyrax and Haas are similar for posterior crossbite correction and increasing the inter-molar distance. The remaining evidence was insufficient to draw any robust conclusions for the efficacy of posterior crossbite correction.

The perceptions of undertaking a higher degree alongside orthodontic speciality training: a cross-sectional survey of British Orthodontic Society members.

Introduction In the UK, orthodontic speciality training takes place over three years full-time. In addition to the clinical training, there is an expectation that trainees undertake a higher degree. Currently, there is little evidence regarding the impact of undertaking a higher degree on specialist orthodontists.Aims Investigate UK orthodontists' perceptions of undertaking a higher degree alongside speciality training.Materials and methods A cross-sectional research study involving the distribution of an anonymous, descriptive, online, questionnaire-based survey between May and June 2021 via the British Orthodontic Society. Data were obtained in relation to the impact of undertaking a higher degree on the completion of speciality training, research skills, delivery of patient care and career opportunities.Results In total, 166 questionnaires were completed (approximately 13.3% response rate). Most respondents 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that undertaking a higher degree had improved their scientific (77.1%) and critical appraisal skills (80.7%), job prospects (60.2%) and career opportunities (63.9%). Most respondents felt the benefits of the higher degree outweighed the associated costs (65.1%) and was a worthwhile component of training (69.3%).Conclusions Specialist orthodontists place a high value on undertaking a higher degree. The results of this questionnaire should be of importance to stakeholders involved in the development of the orthodontic curriculum.

Orthodontic referral management systems: Do they make a difference?

AIMS: To assess the performance of the referral management system (RMS) compared to a previous paper-based referral system and to determine whether referrals reflected the patients' malocclusion and met current guidelines. DESIGN: Three-cycle audit. SETTING: Orthodontic Department, Liverpool University Dental Hospital, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive new orthodontic patient referrals. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from orthodontic referral letters and new patient clinic proformas (2016-2017). Cycle 1 assessed the original paper-based referral form, Cycle 2 assessed the first RMS online form and Cycle 3 assessed a modified RMS form. RESULTS: Cycles 1, 2 and 3 audited 83, 84 and 81 referrals, respectively. Agreement between the reason for referral and the new patient clinic findings was moderate for Cycles 1 and 3 (Kappa = 0.47 and 0.60, respectively) and fair for Cycle 2 (Kappa = 0.40). In Cycles 1, 2 and 3, the proportion of new patients appropriate for hospital orthodontic care reduced from 52% to 51% and 40%, respectively. None of the three cycles reached the 90% target for compliance with current referral guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Cycle 3's RMS form gave a truer reflection of the patients' malocclusion but reduced the proportion of appropriate referrals. Further audit is required in this area to investigate the cost-effectiveness and clinical benefits of the RMS.

Comparison of statural height growth velocity at different cervical vertebral maturation stages.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge of a patient's stage of growth and development plays a vital role in diagnosis, treatment planning, results, and stability of the outcome. Cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) predicts the stage of growth and development, but its validity has only been investigated restrospectively, using historic samples. Our objective was to assess prospectively whether a correlation exists between CVM stage and statural height growth velocity. METHODS: Participants were aged between 8 and 18 years and of both sexes. Standing height was measured every 6 weeks with participants barefoot and in natural head position. CVM stage was assessed from lateral cephalograms taken at the start of treatment. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of CVM staging and statural height measurements were assessed using the Cohen weighted kappa, percentage of agreement, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots, respectively. Analysis of variance was used to test for statistically significant differences between growth velocities at the CVM stages. RESULTS: We analyzed 108 participants. The peak in statural height growth velocity occurred at CVM stage 3 (P = 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in the mean annualized growth velocity between all CVM stages except stages 2 and 4. Girls had their peak pubertal growth spurt an average of 1.2 years earlier than did boys. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is a significant relationship between CVM stage and statural height velocity.

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year-old children in the UK. The condition develops when permanent teeth erupt. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress. Children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with dental braces to reduce the prominence of their teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait and provide treatment in adolescence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth initiated when children are seven to 11 years old ('early treatment' in two phases) compared to in adolescence at around 12 to 16 years old ('late treatment' in one phase); to assess the effects of late treatment compared to no treatment; and to assess the effects of different types of orthodontic braces. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 27 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 27 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 27 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of orthodontic treatments to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. We included trials that compared early treatment in children (two-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-braces versus late treatment in adolescents (one-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces, and trials that compared any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces versus no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (where treatment started at a similar age in the intervention groups).We excluded trials involving participants with a cleft lip or palate, or other craniofacial deformity/syndrome, and trials that recruited patients who had previously received surgical treatment for their Class II malocclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the fixed-effect model for meta-analyses including two or three studies and the random-effects model for more than three studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs based on data from 1251 participants.Three trials compared early treatment with a functional appliance versus late treatment for overjet, ANB and incisal trauma. After phase one of early treatment (i.e. before the other group had received any intervention), there was a reduction in overjet and ANB reduction favouring treatment with a functional appliance; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no difference between groups in final overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18; 343 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43; 347 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Early treatment with functional appliances reduced the incidence of incisal trauma compared to late treatment (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.95; 332 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). The difference in the incidence of incisal trauma was clinically important with 30% (51/171) of participants reporting new trauma in the late treatment group compared to only 19% (31/161) of participants who had received early treatment.Two trials compared early treatment using headgear versus late treatment. After phase one of early treatment, headgear had reduced overjet and ANB; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in overjet (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12; 238 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26; 231 participants) (low-quality evidence). Early (two-phase) treatment with headgear reduced the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.80; 237 participants) (low-quality evidence), with almost half the incidence of new incisal trauma (24/117) compared to the late treatment group (44/120).Seven trials compared late treatment with functional appliances versus no treatment. There was a reduction in final overjet with both fixed functional appliances (MD -5.46 mm, 95% CI -6.63 to -4.28; 2 trials, 61 participants) and removable functional appliances (MD -4.62, 95% CI -5.33 to -3.92; 3 trials, 122 participants) (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in final ANB between fixed functional appliances and no treatment (MD -0.53°, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.22; 3 trials, 89 participants) (low-quality evidence), but removable functional appliances seemed to reduce ANB compared to no treatment (MD -2.37°, 95% CI -3.01 to -1.74; 2 trials, 99 participants) (low-quality evidence).Six trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with Twin Block versus other appliances and found no difference in overjet (0.08 mm, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.76; 4 trials, 259 participants) (low-quality evidence). The reduction in ANB favoured treatment with a Twin Block (-0.56°, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.16; 6 trials, 320 participants) (low-quality evidence).Three trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with removable functional appliances versus fixed functional appliances and found a reduction in overjet in favour of fixed appliances (0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.33; two trials, 154 participants) (low-quality evidence), and a reduction in ANB in favour of removable appliances (-1.04°, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.49; 3 trials, 185 participants) (low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of low to moderate quality suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective for reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment in adolescence. There appear to be no other advantages of providing early treatment when compared to late treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that, compared to no treatment, late treatment in adolescence with functional appliances, is effective for reducing the prominence of upper front teeth.

Pharmacological interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. It increases in proportion to the amount of force applied to the teeth, and the type of orthodontic appliance used can affect the intensity of the pain. Pain during orthodontic treatment has been shown to be the most common reason for people wanting to discontinue treatment, and has been ranked as the worst aspect of treatment. Although pharmacological methods of pain relief have been investigated, there remains some uncertainty among orthodontists about which painkillers are most suitable and whether pre-emptive analgesia is beneficial. We conducted this Cochrane Review to assess and summarize the international evidence relating to the effectiveness of analgesics for preventing this unwanted side effect associated with orthodontic treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review are to determine:- the effectiveness of drug interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment; and- whether there is a difference in the analgesic effect provided by different types, forms and doses of analgesia taken during orthodontic treatment. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 19 June 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL;the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 June 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 June 2017) and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 19 June 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched on the 19 June 2017 for ongoing studies. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to pain control during orthodontic treatment. Pain could be measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS), numerical rating scale (NRS) or categorical scale. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results, agreed the studies to be included and extracted information from the included studies regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms and results. We planned to resolve any discrepancies or disagreements through discussion. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 32 relevant RCTs, which included 3110 participants aged 9 to 34 years, 2348 of whom we were able to include in our analyses. Seventeen of the studies had more than two arms. We were able to use data from 12 trials in meta-analyses that compared analgesics versus control (no treatment or a placebo); nine that compared non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) versus paracetamol; and two that compared pre-emptive versus post-treatment ibuprofen for pain control following orthodontic treatment. One study provided data for the comparison of NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic.We found moderate-quality evidence that analgesics effectively reduced pain following orthodontic treatment when compared to no treatment or a placebo at 2 hours (mean difference (MD) -11.66 mm on a 0 to 100 mm VAS, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.15 to -7.17; 10 studies, 685 participants), 6 hours (MD -24.27 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -31.44 to -17.11; 9 studies, 535 participants) and 24 hours (MD -21.19 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -28.31 to -14.06; 12 studies, 1012 participants).We did not find any evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAID and paracetamol at 2, 6 or 24 hours (at 24 hours: MD -0.51, 95% CI -8.93 to 7.92; 9 studies, 734 participants; low-quality evidence).Very low-quality evidence suggested pre-emptive ibuprofen gave better pain relief at 2 hours than ibuprofen taken post treatment (MD -11.30, 95% CI -16.27 to -6.33; one study, 41 participants), however, the difference was no longer significant at 6 or 24 hours.A single study of 48 participants compared topical NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic and showed no evidence of a difference in the effectiveness of the interventions (very low-quality evidence).Use of rescue analgesia was poorly reported. The very low-quality evidence did not show evidence of a difference between participants taking ibuprofen and participants taking paracetamol (relative risk (RR) 1.5, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.6). Nor did we find evidence of a difference between groups in likelihood of requiring rescue analgesia when ibuprofen was taken pre-emptively compared to after treatment (RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.9).Adverse effects were identified in one study, with one participant developing a rash that required treatment with antihistamines. This was provisionally diagnosed as a hypersensitivity to paracetamol. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Analgesics are more effective at reducing pain following orthodontic treatment than placebo or no treatment. Low-quality evidence did not show a difference in effectiveness between systemic NSAIDs compared with paracetamol, or topical NSAIDs compared with local anaesthetic. More high-quality research is needed to investigate these comparisons, and to evaluate pre-emptive versus post-treatment administration of analgesics.

Tissue necrosis under a Nance palatal arch: a case report.

A Nance palatal arch is a method of reinforcing anchorage to help prevent mesial movement of maxillary first permanent molars. It is recognised that it is difficult to maintain oral hygiene around the appliance and that iatrogenic damage can occur. We present a case of a 22-year-old male patient in whom the palatal mucosa became necrotic, palatal bone became exposed and long-term periodontal damage occurred. We describe the case, his treatment and the resolution of the inflammation as well as exploring the causes for the damage and alternate treatment options.

Perceptions of national recruitment for orthodontic specialty registrars: 2012-2014.

AIM: To assess the changes in interviewees' and interviewers' perceptions and experiences of national recruitment and a multi-station interview (MSI) for the selection of Orthodontic Specialty Registrars to UK training programmes from 2012 to 2014. DESIGN: Questionnaire-based longitudinal survey. SETTING: Interviews for selection of Orthodontic Specialty Registrars (StRs) held at London Deanery, London, UK. METHODS: Interviewees and interviewers completed an anonymous questionnaire comprising of 17 and 26 questions, respectively. RESULTS: Interviewees: The number, age (p = 0.29) and time since qualification (p = 0.90) increased slightly over the 3 years but these changes were not statistically significant. The proportion of females (p = 0.32) and those with a UK primary dental qualification (p = 0.52) varied slightly but the variation was not statistically significant. The proportion that had experience of the MSI format increased significantly over the 3 years (p < 0.01). More than 75% were positive about the organization, experience and fairness of the MSI interview format. Interviewers: The age (p = 0.54), time since being a consultant (p = 0.90), proportion of females (p = 0.43) and those favouring the MSI format (p = 0.29) varied slightly but this was not statistically significant. More than 75% were positive about the organization, experience and fairness of the MSI format. More than 90% of interviewers thought that the process selected the best candidates, was fair and that more than one assessor was required at each station. CONCLUSIONS: Interviewees were consistently very positive about the organization and fairness of the MSI format. Interviewers were consistently very positive about the selection of candidates, fairness and conduct of the MSIs.

Reliability of cervical vertebral maturation staging.

INTRODUCTION: Growth and its prediction are important for the success of many orthodontic treatments. The aim of this study was to determine the reliability of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth. METHODS: A group of 20 orthodontic clinicians, inexperienced in CVM staging, was trained to use the improved version of the CVM method for the assessment of mandibular growth with a teaching program. They independently assessed 72 consecutive lateral cephalograms, taken at Liverpool University Dental Hospital, on 2 occasions. The cephalograms were presented in 2 different random orders and interspersed with 11 additional images for standardization. The intraobserver and interobserver agreement values were evaluated using the weighted kappa statistic. RESULTS: The intraobserver and interobserver agreement values were substantial (weighted kappa, 0.6-0.8). The overall intraobserver agreement was 0.70 (SE, 0.01), with average agreement of 89%. The interobserver agreement values were 0.68 (SE, 0.03) for phase 1 and 0.66 (SE, 0.03) for phase 2, with average interobserver agreement of 88%. CONCLUSIONS: The intraobserver and interobserver agreement values of classifying the vertebral stages with the CVM method were substantial. These findings demonstrate that this method of CVM classification is reproducible and reliable.

Trainers' and trainees' perceptions of workplace-based assessment in orthodontics.

AIMS: To explore trainers' and trainees' perceptions and experiences of Workplace-Based Assessments (WBAs) in Orthodontic Speciality Registrar (StR) training in England. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire survey. SETTING: UK. PARTICIPANTS: Orthodontic StRs who had started their training in 2011-2012 and their trainers. METHODS: Participants completed an anonymous on-line questionnaire in July-August 2013.Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and frequency distributions. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 42% (76/180) of trainers and 62% (46/74) of trainees. Half of the trainers spent 0.25 programmed activity (PA) per month undertaking WBAs. However, 88% of trainers had no PAs in their job plan for WBAs. The majority (53/66, 80%) of trainers undertook up to half of the WBAs in their SPAs. The trainers undertook a median of 5.5 (Interquartile range = 4) WBAs per trainee per year. Trainees spent an average of an hour per month undertaking WBAs. The mean number of completed WBAs per year was 12 (SD 4.2; 95%CI 10.7, 13.7) and mode was 10 WBAs. Almost all trainees, (33/34) had more than 80% of their WBAs undertaken by Consultants. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in trainers' and trainees' perception of the WBAs, and were accepted by both the trainers and trainees. Trainers and trainees spent about 1 hour per month undertaking WBAs. The majority of trainers undertook the WBAs in their SPA time. Trainees appeared to be undertaking the recommended number of WBAs.

Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites.

BACKGROUND: A posterior crossbite occurs when the top back teeth bite inside the bottom back teeth. When it affects one side of the mouth, the lower jaw may have to move to one side to allow the back teeth to meet together. Several treatments have been recommended to correct this problem. Some treatments widen the upper teeth while others are directed at treating the cause of the posterior crossbite (e.g. breathing problems or sucking habits). Most treatments have been used at each stage of dental development. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 21 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 21 January 2014), and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 21 January 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites in children and adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, independently and in duplicate, screened the results of the electronic searches, and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We attempted to contact the first named authors of the included studies for missing data and for clarification. We used risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarise dichotomous (event) data, and mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs to summarise continuous data. We performed meta-analyses using fixed-effect models (we would have used random-effects models if we had included four or more studies in a meta-analysis) when comparisons and outcomes were sufficiently similar. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies, of which two were at low risk of bias, seven were at high risk of bias and six were unclear. Fixed appliances with mid-palatal expansionNine studies tested fixed appliances with mid-palatal expansion against each other. No study reported a difference between any type of appliance. Fixed versus removable appliancesFixed quad-helix appliances may be 20% more likely to correct crossbites than removable expansion plates (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.37; two studies; 96 participants; low-quality evidence).Quad-helix appliances may achieve 1.15 mm more molar expansion than expansion plates (MD 1.15 mm; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.90; two studies; 96 participants; moderate-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence of a difference in canine expansion or the stability of crossbite correction.Very limited evidence showed that both fixed quad-helix appliances and removable expansion plates were superior to composite onlays in terms of crossbite correction, molar and canine expansion. Other comparisonsVery limited evidence showed that treatments were superior to no treatment, but there was insufficient evidence of a difference between any active treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a very small body of low- to moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the quad-helix appliance may be more successful than removable expansion plates at correcting posterior crossbites and expanding the inter-molar width for children in the early mixed dentition (aged eight to 10 years). The remaining evidence we found was of very low quality and was insufficient to allow the conclusion that any one intervention is better than another for any of the outcomes in this review.

Interviewers' and interviewees' perceptions of the changes in recruitment of orthodontic specialty registrars.

AIM: To assess interviewers' and interviewees' perceptions of the National Recruitment for Orthodontic Specialty Registrars in 2012. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Interviewers and interviewees completed an anonymous questionnaire comprising of 25 and 16 questions, respectively. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and frequency distributions. RESULTS: All interviewees (83/83) and 88% (36/41) of interviewers completed the questionnaires. Of the interviewees, 61% were female; their mean age was 28·9 years (95% CI: 28·2-29·6). The mean time since bachelor of dental science (BDS) was 5·6 years (95% CI: 4·9-6·3) with 78% qualifying from a UK university. The interviewees preferred the multi-station interview (MSI) format, considered the questions easy to understand and thought that MSI was fairer than traditional interviews. Of the interviewers, 56% were male; their mean age was 45·5 years (95% CI: 43·0-48·0). The mean time that they had been a consultant was 11·4 years (95% CI: 8·7-13·1). The interviewers thought that the interviews were fair, tested an appropriate range of competences, selected the best candidates to be appointed and would appoint the same people if repeated. CONCLUSIONS: Interviewees were very positive about the organization and perceived fairness of the MSI format. Interviewers were positive about the selection of candidates, fairness and conduct of the MSI format.