"Over-reviewing" of research? An analysis of orthodontic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Research overviews may be undertaken to identify gaps in the literature, evaluate existing systematic reviews (SRs), and summarize evidence. This paper aims to profile overviews that have been conducted in orthodontics and related interventions since 2012 and to evaluate the degree of overlap among these overviews. METHODS: Overviews published between January 1, 2012 and June 20, 2023 were identified using an electronic search involving Google Scholar and PubMed. A descriptive summary was produced, and citation matrices were used to evaluate the percentage of overlap between overviews using corrected covered area and covered area. This was classified as slight, moderate, high, or very high. RESULTS: A total of 35 overviews were identified across a wide range of topics. Eight overviews included <10 SRs; 21 had 10-20 SRs; and 6 included >20 SRs (median no. of SRs per overview, 15; range, 3-62). Meta-analysis was conducted in only 5 overviews. Overlap between overviews on the same topic ranged from slight (2.7%) to very high (53.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Almost all overview topics address treatments and their effects, with a wide variation in the number and quality of SRs included. There is considerable overlap in some orthodontic overviews, suggesting unnecessary duplication and research waste. Researchers should be encouraged to focus on primary data collection to add more high-quality data to SRs, which will ultimately enhance the yield from secondary and tertiary orthodontic research.

The dark side of fixed retainers: Case series.

This article focuses on on the presentation and management 9 adult patients who experienced complications because of their maxillary or mandibular fixed retainers 5-33 years after orthodontic treatment. Such complications include the development of an anterior crossbite, open bite, incisal cant, and twist- and x-effects. The detrimental effects on periodontal health were highlighted, especially in the mandibular canines. A range of fixed retainer types was identified, including flexible spiral wire bonded to 4 maxillary or 6 mandibular anterior teeth, rigid wire bonded to mandibular canines only and fiber-reinforced composite fixed retainer. Orthodontic retreatment was necessary in all patients using fixed appliances or clear aligners. Radiographic findings from cone-beam computed tomography or orthopantomogram before and after retreatment are presented when available. Despite the improvement of teeth position clinically, the cone-beam computed tomography scans taken directly after the completion of orthodontic retreatment did not show notable improvement with regards to root proximity to the cortical plates. The prevention of further complications was highlighted, including the use of dual retention, remote monitoring, frequent follow-up appointments and the importance of developing clear guidelines for monitoring patients in retention for treating clinicians and general dentists to promote early detection of adverse changes.

The influence of mobile applications and social media-based interventions in producing behavior change among orthodontic patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this project was to systematically review the effectiveness of mobile applications and social media-based interventions in producing a behavioral change in orthodontic patients. METHODS: Electronic databases and reference lists of relevant studies were searched on March 1, 2021, with no language restrictions (PROSPERO: CRD42019157298). Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials assessing the impact of mobile applications and social media-based interventions on orthodontic patients were identified. Primary outcomes included adherence to wear, appointment attendance, knowledge, oral health-related behaviors, oral hygiene levels, periodontal outcomes, and related iatrogenic effects. The quality of the included trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools. A weighted treatment effect of interventions on periodontal outcomes was calculated. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. RESULTS: A total of 3617 articles were identified. Of these, 16 studies (14 randomized controlled trials and 2 nonrandomized controlled trials) were deemed eligible. Nine randomized controlled trials were judged to be of either low or unclear risk of bias. The intervention was favored in relation to gingival and plaque indexes, standardized mean difference: -0.81 (95% confidence intervals [CI], -1.35 to -0.28) and -0.91 (95% CI, -1.64 to -0.19), respectively. However, no significant effect was observed in bleeding on probing (standardized mean difference: -0.22; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.05). The level of evidence was high in probing depth and bleeding on probing outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A very low to moderate level of evidence supports the effects of mobile applications and social media-based interventions in producing positive behavioral changes in orthodontic patients. Further high-quality trials would assist in further elucidating the potential of these approaches to influence orthodontic treatment outcomes and experiences.

A cross-sectional evaluation of the impact of Class II Division 1 malocclusion in treated and untreated adolescents on oral health-related quality of life.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between malocclusion, orthodontic treatment, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQOL) is complicated, with some traits, such as increased overjet, having a potentially greater adverse effect on an adolescent's OHRQOL. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment on OHRQOL in adolescents presenting with Class II Division 1 malocclusion and explore the relationship between OHRQOL using a condition-specific and generic instrument and occlusal outcome. METHODS: Two groups of adolescents were recruited from a United Kingdom university hospital: a pretreatment group of adolescents with Class II Division 1 malocclusion and a treated (posttreatment) group whose Class II Division 1 malocclusion had been corrected. Self-reported OHRQOL was assessed using the malocclusion impact questionnaire (MIQ) and the short form of Child Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaires. Occlusion severity and outcome were assessed using Peer Assessment Rating scores. RESULTS: A total of 241 participants (106 male; 135 female) were recruited. MIQ scores differed significantly between the pretreatment and posttreatment groups, with scores being 11.35 times lower posttreatment than pretreatment, after adjusting for age and sex (95% confidence interval, -17.28 to -5.42; P <0.001). Females had higher total MIQ scores by 2.6 (95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 4.82), which was statistically significant (P = 0.022). There was a moderate correlation between MIQ and Peer Assessment Rating scores, but this relationship strengthened when omitting the global MIQ questions (Spearman's correlation coefficient, 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Increased overjet was associated with impaired OHRQOL using a condition-specific measure. A deeper understanding of associations between malocclusion, orthodontic treatment, and OHRQOL would benefit from longitudinal evaluation.

Development of a core outcome set for use in routine orthodontic clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: A diverse range of outcomes is used in orthodontic research with a focus on measuring outcomes important to clinicians and little consistency in outcome selection and measurement. We aimed to develop a core outcome set for use in clinical trials of orthodontic treatment not involving cleft or orthognathic patient groups. METHODS: A list of outcomes measured in previous orthodontic research was identified through a scoping literature review. Additional outcomes of importance to patients were obtained using qualitative interviews and focus groups with adolescents aged 10-16 years. Rating of outcomes was carried out in a 2-round electronic Delphi process involving health care professionals and patients using a 9-point scale. A face-to-face meeting was subsequently held with stakeholders to discuss the results before refining the core outcome set. RESULTS: After triangulation, a final list of 34 outcomes grouped under 10 domains was obtained for rating in the e-Delphi surveys. Fifteen outcomes were voted "in" after the second Delphi round involving 274 participants with a further outcome being included after the consensus meeting. These were subsequently refined into a final set of 7 core outcomes, including the impact of self-perceived esthetics, alignment and/or occlusion, skeletal relationship, stability, patient-related adherence, breakages, and adverse effects on teeth or teeth-supporting structures. CONCLUSIONS: A bespoke orthodontic core outcome set encompassing both clinician- and patient-focused outcomes was developed. Incorporating this is the first step into providing a more holistic assessment of the impact of treatment while allowing for meaningful comparisons and synthesis of results from individual trials.

Prioritising patients in research and practice - why and how?

There is an increasing emphasis on the incorporation of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient reported experience measures (PREMs) in healthcare. Development, implementation and adoption of these is fundamental in prioritising orthodontic research and practice.

How well are dental qualitative studies involving interviews and focus groups reported?

OBJECTIVE: Qualitative research is being increasingly ingrained within dentistry. The aim of the study was to assess whether recent qualitative studies involving interviews and focus groups in the dental literature comply with the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist. METHODS: Qualitative studies in dentistry, involving interviews and focus groups with patients, parents or caregivers published between January 2017 and June 2018 were identified through electronic and hand searching with no language restrictions. The characteristics of the included studies and adherence to the COREQ checklist were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 7137 studies were identified. Following initial screening, 244 full-text articles were obtained; of these, 100 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the identified studies were in the field of dental public health (30%) with just half published in dental journals. The median sample size was 20 participants (IQR 38.5). Data analysis was most commonly undertaken using thematic analysis or the framework approach 59% (53/90), with purposive sampling used in 54% (36/67) of those describing sampling methods. On average, 17 (±5.3) of 32 of the COREQ checklist items were presented within the individual studies. Overall, the quality of reporting of individual studies was typically categorised as either moderate (51%) or poor (34%). CONCLUSION: As qualitative research in dentistry becomes more established, improved adherence to the COREQ checklist should be encouraged to ensure transparent reporting, in order to maximally influence the delivery of care, policy and clinical practice.

Orthodontic trial outcomes: Plentiful, inconsistent, and in need of uniformity? A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The selection of appropriate outcomes that matter to both patients and operators is increasingly appreciated, with core outcome sets in clinical trials gaining in popularity. The first step in core outcome set development is the generation of a list of possible important outcomes based on a scoping literature review. Moreover, outcome heterogeneity is known to detract from the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to identify the range of outcome domains and specific outcome measures in contemporary orthodontic research. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were searched from December 31, 2012, to December 31, 2016, to identify clinical trials of orthodontic interventions, with no language restrictions. Abstracts, eligible full texts, and reference lists were screened, and all reported primary and nonprimary outcomes and methods of measurement were recorded. RESULTS: The search identified 1267 abstracts, of which 189 full-text articles were retrieved, and 164 studies were included in the analysis. A total of 54 outcomes were identified and categorized into 14 outcome domains. The most frequently measured outcomes were patient-reported pain, periodontal health, tooth angulation/inclination changes, and treatment duration, followed by rate of tooth movement and skeletal changes. Outcomes that followed the overall course of treatment were assessed in only 14 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Patient perspectives are increasingly being accounted for in orthodontic trials; however, there is little consistency in outcome selection among them. The identified list of outcomes will be used to inform a ranking exercise with service users and providers to establish an agreed core outcome set for future orthodontic clinical trials.

Development of a core outcome set for orthodontic trials using a mixed-methods approach: protocol for a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment is commonly undertaken in young people, with over 40% of children in the UK needing treatment and currently one third having treatment, at a cost to the National Health Service in England and Wales of £273 million each year. Most current research about orthodontic care does not consider what patients truly feel about, or want, from treatment, and a diverse range of outcomes is being used with little consistency between studies. This study aims to address these problems, using established methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in future clinical trials of orthodontic interventions in children and young people. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a mixed-methods study incorporating four distinct stages. The first stage will include a scoping review of the scientific literature to identify primary and secondary outcome measures that have been used in previous orthodontic clinical trials. The second stage will involve qualitative interviews and focus groups with orthodontic patients aged 10 to 16 years to determine what outcomes are important to them. The outcomes elicited from these two stages will inform the third stage of the study in which a long-list of outcomes will be ranked in terms of importance using electronic Delphi surveys involving clinicians and patients. The final stage of the study will involve face-to-face consensus meetings with all stakeholders to discuss and agree on the outcome measures that should be included in the final core outcome set. DISCUSSION: This research will help to inform patients, parents, clinicians and commissioners about outcomes that are important to young people undergoing orthodontic treatment. Adoption of the core outcome set in future clinical trials of orthodontic treatment will make it easier for results to be compared, contrasted and combined. This should translate into improved decision-making by all stakeholders involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The project has been registered on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials ( COMET ) website, January 2016.

Are dental researchers asking patient-important questions? A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: There is an increasing recognition that research outcomes should resonate with patients rather than fixating on technical aspects of interventions. We aimed to assess the nature of outcomes within a representative subset of clinical trials published in leading dental journals. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials published over a 3-year period up to December 31st, 2015 were identified in eight leading general and specialty dental journals: Journal of Dental Research, Journal of Dentistry, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Pediatric Dentistry, International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Endodontics, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Journal of Clinical Periodontology. The number and nature of outcomes considered within these trials were assessed. RESULTS: Overall 220 RCTs involving 409 outcomes (257 primary and 152 secondary) were identified. Measures of disease activity were most commonly assessed as both primary (n=91, 35%) and secondary outcomes (n=59, 39%). Quality of life and functional measures were rarely considered as primary outcome domains. Overall, 182 (44%) outcomes were primarily clinician-focused, 140 (34%) were patient-centered, while 22% (n=87) were both patient- and clinician- focused. CONCLUSIONS: There is an undue emphasis on technical, clinician-centered outcomes within dental research common to all specialty areas. Development and adoption of core outcome sets representing the minimum set of data that should be obtained within a dental clinical trial would assist in addressing this issue. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: There is an acceptance that research outcomes should ultimately be of relevance and benefit to patients rather than focusing on technical aspects of interventions. This study points to an undue emphasis on technical, clinician-centered outcomes within dental research common to all specialty areas. Development and adoption of agreed dental core outcome sets would help to remedy this.

How long does treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances last? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: There is little agreement on the expected duration of a course of orthodontic treatment; however, a consensus appears to have emerged that fixed appliance treatment is overly lengthy. This has spawned numerous novel approaches directed at reducing the duration of treatment, occasionally with an acceptance that occlusal outcomes may be compromised. The aim of this study was to determine the mean duration and the number of visits required for comprehensive orthodontic treatment involving fixed appliances. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were searched with no language restrictions, authors were contacted as required, and reference lists of potentially relevant studies were screened. Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized prospective studies concerning fixed appliance treatment with treatment duration as an outcome measure were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included after screening: 20 randomized controlled trials and 5 controlled clinical trials. Twenty-two studies were eligible for meta-analysis after quality assessment. The mean treatment duration derived from the 22 included studies involving 1089 participants was 19.9 months (95% confidence interval, 19.58, 20.22 months). Sensitivity analyses were carried out including 3 additional studies, resulting in average duration of treatment of 20.02 months (95% confidence interval, 19.71, 20.32 months) based on data from 1211 participants. The mean number of required visits derived from 5 studies was 17.81 (95% confidence interval, 15.47, 20.15 visits). CONCLUSIONS: Based on prospective studies carried out in university settings, comprehensive orthodontic treatment on average requires less than 2 years to complete.

Do orthodontic research outcomes reflect patient values? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials involving children.

INTRODUCTION: The selection of appropriate outcomes is a fundamental part of the design of clinical trials. Orthodontic treatment aims to improve a person's dentofacial appearance, and research outcomes should therefore reflect the perspectives of both clinicians and patients. In this study, we aimed to identify which outcomes were measured in recent orthodontic trials and to explore whether any relevant outcome domains were underrepresented. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials of orthodontic treatment interventions in children published in the last 5 years. Abstracts and eligible full-text articles were screened independently and in duplicate by 2 reviewers. Outcome measures were identified and categorized into 6 predetermined outcome domains. RESULTS: The search identified 650 abstracts, of which 244 eligible articles were retrieved in full. One hundred thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. Morphologic features of malocclusion were measured in 84 studies (63%); health resource utilization in 43 (32%); adverse effects of orthodontic treatment in 43 (32%); quality of life in 12 (9%); functional status in 10 (8%); and physical consequences of malocclusion in 3 (2%). There was no consistency in the outcomes selected among the trials to measure these domains. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the outcomes used in orthodontic research are concerned with measuring morphologic changes of treatment and do not reflect patient perspectives. Five of the 6 domains were infrequently evaluated, and outcomes were heterogenous. A core set of outcomes for clinical trials of orthodontic treatment interventions would help to overcome these issues.