National British Orthodontic Society (BOS) Orthognathic Audit 2017-2018.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a UK national clinical audit of orthognathic acceptance criteria and information provided to orthognathic patients before treatment. DESIGN: National clinical audit. SETTING: Data collected using Bristol Online Surveys. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-nine UK hospital orthodontic departments submitted data. METHODS: Data were collected at two time points using Bristol Online Surveys over a period of 12 months. These were before treatment at the first multidisciplinary clinic (MDT) and immediately after surgery. The data collected included: Index of Orthognathic Functional Treatment Need (IOFTN); Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN); age; previous orthodontic treatment; attendance at an MDT; treatment times; and information provision. RESULTS: Eighty-five units agreed to take part in the audit with 69 submitting data, giving a response rate of 81%. The data from 3404 patients were uploaded, 2263 before treatment and 1141 immediately after surgery. Of patients, 91.07% had an IOFTN score of 4 or 5 and 88.73% had an IOTN score of 4 or 5. The mean age at the first MDT was 22 years in the first cohort and 21 years and 4 months in the second immediate post-surgery cohort. Of patients, 37.93% had undergone some form of previous orthodontic treatment, but only 0.28% had undergone previous orthognathic treatment; 96.93% had an MDT confirm that orthodontic treatment by itself was insufficient to adequately correct their functional symptoms. The average treatment time from bond up to surgery was 2 years and 6 months. With respect to information provision, patients received information from a number of sources, principally the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) patient information leaflets and the BOS website Your Jaw Surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, the majority of orthognathic cases fulfil the criteria for acceptance for NHS-funded orthognathic treatment, as outlined by the Chief Dental Officer's interim guidance on orthognathic treatment. This suggests any prior approval process would not be a good use of NHS resources in the commissioning of orthognathic treatment.

Chewing gum vs. ibuprofen in the management of orthodontic pain, a multi-centre randomised controlled trial - the effect of anxiety.

OBJECTIVES: Pain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. An objective of this study, part of a large previously reported RCT on pain and analgesic use, was to determine the effect of anxiety on perceived pain and use of analgesia. METHODS: 1000 patients aged 11-17 years, undergoing upper and lower fixed appliance treatment in nine hospital departments were recruited into this two-arm parallel design randomised controlled trial. One arm was given sugar-free chewing gum and the other arm ibuprofen for pain relief. Neither the clinicians nor patients were blinded to assignment. In addition to recording pain experience and analgesic use for 3 days following appliance placement and first archwire change, each patient recorded their level of anxiety immediately following the fitting of the appliance and the first archwire change. RESULTS: 419 chewing gum group (84%) and 407 ibuprofen group (83%) questionnaires were returned following appliance placement, and 343 chewing gum group (70%) and 341 ibuprofen group (71%) questionnaires were returned following the first archwire change. The mean anxiety scores following fitting of the appliance and first archwire change were 2.7 (SD 2.1) and 1.6 (SD 1.8), respectively. There were weak but significant positive associations between anxiety scores and pain scores. Multi-level modelling produced a coefficient for anxiety of 0.23 (95% CI 0.17-0.28) for appliance placement, suggesting a small rise (0.23) on the 11-point pain scale for a one-point increase on the corresponding anxiety scale. Following archwire change, the corresponding coefficient was 0.32 (0.24-0.39). For ibuprofen use, again simple analyses suggested a relationship with anxiety. Multi-level logistic modelling produced an odds ratio for ibuprofen use of 1.11 (95% CI 1.07-1.15) at appliance placement and 1.21 (1.10-1.33) at the first archwire change. There was a 10-20% increase in the odds of using ibuprofen for each one-point increase on the anxiety scale. No such relationship was found between anxiety and chewing gum use. There were no adverse effects or harms reported during the trial. Approvals were granted by the Research Ethics Committee (08/H0106/139), R&D and MHRA (Eudract 2008-005522-36) and the trial was registered on the ISRCTN (79884739) and NIHR (6631) portfolios. Support was provided by the British Orthodontic Society Foundation. CONCLUSIONS: There was a weak positive correlation between anxiety reported and pain experienced following both the initial fitting of the fixed appliances and at the subsequent archwire change. Patients that were more anxious tended to take more ibuprofen for their pain relief.

Comparative assessment of chewing gum and ibuprofen in the management of orthodontic pain with fixed appliances: A pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this randomized trial was to investigate the effect of the use of a sugar-free chewing gum vs ibuprofen on reported pain in orthodontic patients. METHODS: This was a 2-arm parallel design randomized controlled trial in 9 sites in the southwest of England. Patients about to undergo orthodontic treatment with maxillary and mandibular fixed appliances were recruited and randomly allocated to an experimental chewing gum group or a control ibuprofen group. Eligibility criteria included patients undergoing fixed maxillary and mandibular appliance therapy, aged 11 to 17 years, and able to use ibuprofen and chewing gum. The primary outcome measure was pain experienced after appliance placement using a mean of 3 recordings on a scale of 0 to 10. Secondary outcome measures were pain experienced in the subsequent 3 days, pain after the first archwire change, ibuprofen use, and appliance breakages. Pain scores were recorded with a questionnaire and posted to a collection center by each patient. Randomization was by means of a central telephone service and comprised computer-generated random numbers used to generate a sequential allocation list, with permuted blocks of variable size (2 and 4) and stratified by center. Neither the clinicians nor the patients were blinded to the intervention. Patients in the control group were permitted to use ibuprofen only, and patients in the experimental group were allowed to use ibuprofen if they did not get sufficient analgesia from the chewing gum. Data were analyzed using the principle of intention to treat with multilevel modeling to reflect the structured nature of the data (scores within patient within site). RESULTS: One thousand patients were recruited and randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to the chewing gum and ibuprofen (control) groups. The male-to-female ratios were similar in the groups. The pain questionnaire response rates were good at approximately 84% and 83% after appliance placement (chewing gum group, 419; ibuprofen group, 407) and 70% and 71% after the first archwire change (chewing gum group, 343; ibuprofen group, 341). The primary outcomes were similar for the 2 groups: mean pain scores, 4.31 in the chewing gum group and 4.17 in the ibuprofen group; difference, 0.14 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.41). There was a suggestion that the relative pain scores for the 2 groups changed over time, with the chewing gum group experiencing slightly more pain on the day of bond-up and less on the subsequent 3 days; however, the differences had no clinical importance. There were no significant differences for the period after archwire change. The reported use of ibuprofen was less in the chewing gum group than in the ibuprofen group; after appliance placement, the mean numbers of occasions that ibuprofen was used were 2.1 in the chewing gum group and 3.0 in the ibuprofen group (adjusted difference, -0.96 [95% CI, -0.75 to -1.17; P <0.001]); after archwire change, the figures were 0.8 and 1.5 occasions (difference, -0.65 [-0.44 to -0.86; P <0.001]). After appliance placement and the first archwire change, there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in appliance breakages between the chewing gum and ibuprofen groups after either bond-up (7% and 8.8%, respectively) or the first archwire change (4.2% and 5.5%, respectively). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a sugar-free chewing gum may reduce the level of ibuprofen usage but has no clinically or statistically significant effect on bond failures. REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (79884739) and National Institute of Health Research (6631) portfolios. FUNDING: This research was supported by an award by the British Orthodontic Society Foundation.

The current status of 3D imaging in dental practice.

This article aims to describe the current status of 3-dimensional (3D) imaging in dental practice. Advances in this field have made 3D imaging far more accessible in all dental fields. This paper describes methods of imaging dental hard and soft tissues and their clinical uses. In addition, the potential advantages and disadvantages of various systems are discussed, as well as expected future developments.

Corrosion of orthodontic appliances--should we care?

Contemporary orthodontics relies on various bonded attachments, archwires, and other devices to achieve tooth movement. These components are composed of varying materials with their own distinctive physical and mechanical properties. The demands made on them are complex because they are placed under many stresses in the oral environment. These include immersion in saliva and ingested fluids, temperature fluctuations, and masticatory and appliance loading. The combination of these materials in close proximity and in hostile conditions can result in corrosion. Our purpose in this article was to consider the literature to date with regard to potential mechanical, clinical, and health implications of orthodontic corrosion.