"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.

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.

Clinical effectiveness of clear aligner treatment compared to fixed appliance treatment: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the available evidence regarding clinical effectiveness of clear aligner treatment (CAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted for systematic reviews investigating effectiveness of CAT published up to July 15, 2021. This was accomplished using different electronic databases. No language restriction was applied. Screening, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by two authors independently. Information was categorized and narratively synthesized for the key findings from moderate and high-quality reviews. RESULTS: A total of 361 potentially eligible reviews were identified. After excluding the non-relevant/low-quality reviews, 18 systematic reviews were included. CAT was found to be effective for mild to moderate malocclusions, and was associated with inferior outcomes when treating severe cases or with achieving specific tooth movements. There were conflicting results regarding treatment duration; however, CAT may be associated with shorter treatment in mild to moderate cases. Relapse was greater with CAT, while periodontal health was better. The risk of root resorption tended to be lower with CAT. Regarding pain, the results were unclear, although CAT was found to be more comfortable and associated with a reduced impact on eating and chewing. CONCLUSIONS: The level of evidence regarding CAT is moderate; hence, further high-quality randomized clinical trials are required. Evidence supports use of aligners as an alternate to fixed appliances in patients with mild-to-moderate malocclusion but not in severe cases. Advancement in technology could enhance the accuracy of CAT in delivering planned outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CAT can be used effectively for selected cases with mild to moderate malocclusion. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021246855.

Orthodontic treatment and root resorption: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Root resorption can be considered the most unfortunate complication of orthodontic treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the available evidence regarding orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR). SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted for the systematic reviews investigating OIIRR published up to 24 May 2020. This was accomplished using electronic databases: MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), PubMed, and Web of Science. Any ongoing systematic reviews were searched using Prospero and a grey literature search was undertaken using Google Scholar and OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu/). No language restriction was applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only studies investigating OIIRR were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening, quality assessment [using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews)], and data extraction were performed by two authors independently. Information was categorized and narratively synthesized for the key findings from moderate and high-quality reviews. RESULTS: A total of 2033 potentially eligible studies were identified. After excluding the non-relevant studies, 28 systematic reviews were included. Of which, 20 systematic reviews (71.5%) were of moderate and high-quality level of evidence. The incidence and severity of OIIRR increase with the fixed appliance, especially with heavy force, intrusion, torqueing movements, increased treatment duration, and treatment with extractions or with long apical displacement (particularly for maxillary incisors). There was insufficient evidence regarding most other treatment- and patient-related factors on OIIRR. Following all precautionary measures, pausing treatment and regular monitoring benefits patients with OIIRR. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There is a limited number of high-quality studies in terms of OIIRR. The influence of fixed appliance on root resorption was noted; however, the cause and effect relationship between OIIRR and orthodontic biomechanics has not been confirmed. Avoiding heavy, continuous forces and a greater amount of apical displacement over a long duration of treatment is recommended. Precautionary measures should be carefully considered when treating patients with a high risk of OIIRR. REGISTRATION: CRD42020166629.

The impact of labial fixed appliance orthodontic treatment on patient expectation, experience, and satisfaction: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Patient perception with fixed appliance orthodontic treatment is important to improve oral health-related quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of labial fixed appliance orthodontic care on patient perception before, during, and after the treatment. SEARCH METHODS: Relevant systematic reviews investigating patient perception with fixed appliance orthodontic treatment were identified by searching electronic databases: MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 31 December 2018), EMBASE (1974 to 31 December 2018), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database; 1985 to November 2018), PubMed (inception to 31 December 2018), Web of Science (1900 to 2018), and PsychINFO (1806 to 31 December 2018). Ongoing systematic reviews were searched using Prospero and a grey literature search was undertaken using Google Scholar and OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu/). No language restriction was applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only studies investigating patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening, quality assessment [using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews)], and data extraction were performed by two authors independently. Information was categorized and narratively synthesized for the key findings. RESULTS: A total of 163 articles investigating patient expectation, experience, and satisfaction with conventional ligation labial fixed orthodontic appliances were obtained. Of these, 152 observational or interventional studies were excluded, resulting in 11 eligible systematic reviews. Two were excluded as earlier reports of a Cochrane review. The quality of the reviews was variable (critically low, low, and moderate). The findings were as follows: aesthetics represents a primary motive for orthodontic treatment; a temporary deterioration in the quality of life occurs during the initial phases of treatment; gender and ethnicity factors do not have an impact on patient perception of treatment; and a positive relationship between orthodontist-patient-parent is important to achieve patient compliance and satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high-quality studies in terms of systematic reviews and meta-analyses for assessing patient perception with fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. The aesthetic impact of malocclusion is the main motive for seeking orthodontic treatment. Quality of life reduces during the initial stages of orthodontic treatment but improves in the later stages of treatment. Assessment before, during, and after orthodontic treatment is necessary to comprehensively assess patient perception at all stages of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019122653. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None to declare.

A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot orthodontic bracket systems: part 1-duration of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment duration between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot systems and determine factors influencing treatment duration. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eligible participants aged 12 years or over were allocated to the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. Outcome measures included duration of: 1. overall treatment, 2. levelling and alignment, 3. working and finishing, and 4. appointment numbers and other treatment-related factors. Parametric tests (independent samples t-test) and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher's exact tests and Mann-Whitney U-test) assessed differences between groups. A multiple linear regression analysis identified factors influencing treatment duration (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P > 0.05). The mean duration of treatment for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot groups was 29.3 and 31.2 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in terms of treatment duration, duration of the key stages of treatment, and number of appointments (P > 0.05). The regression analysis revealed 33.0 per cent of variance in treatment duration was explained by age at bonding, Class II division 2 malocclusion, number of failed appointments, number of emergency appointments, and transfer to another clinician. There were no adverse events. LIMITATIONS: It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in treatment duration between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. Increasing patient age, Class II division 2 malocclusion, number of failed and emergency appointments, and multi-operator treatment all increase orthodontic treatment duration. REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338. PROTOCOL: The protocol was published at DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-389.

A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot orthodontic bracket systems: part 3-biological side-effects of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) and patient perception of pain during orthodontic treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eligible participants aged 12 years or above were allocated to treatment with the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. OIIRR was assessed radiographically using standardized periapical radiographs before and after 9 months from the start of treatment. Patient perception of pain was assessed using a validated patient questionnaire at 6 months from the start of treatment. Parametric tests (t-test) and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher's exact tests and Kruskal-Wallis test) assessed differences between the groups (P < 0.05). The correlation between severity of OIIRR and abnormal root morphology, history of dental trauma, and pain during treatment was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the severity of the OIIRR nor patient perception of pain between the two study groups (P = 0.115 and P = 0.08 respectively). The correlation between the severity of OIIRR and abnormal root morphology or history of dental trauma was not statistically significant (P = 0.086 and P = 0.313). Moreover, there was no significant correlation between the severity of OIIRR and pain during treatment (R = 0.045, P = 0.617). LIMITATIONS: It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation, and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of bracket slot size on the severity of OIIRR and patient perception of pain are not significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338.

A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot orthodontic bracket systems: part 2-quality of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of orthodontic treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eligible participants aged 12 years or over were allocated to the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. Outcome measures included: 1. ABO cast-radiograph evaluation (CR-EVAL), 2. peer assessment rating (PAR) scores, 3. incisor inclination, and 4. patient perception using the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need aesthetic component (IOTN AC) and three validated questionnaires before, during and after treatment. Parametric tests [independent samples t-test and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)] and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher's exact tests and Mann-Whitney U-test) assessed differences between groups (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P > 0.05). The mean total ABO CR-EVAL scores were 34.7 and 34.5; mean percentage PAR score reduction 74.1 per cent and 77.1 per cent; mean change for maxillary incisor inclination 2.9 degrees and 1.6 degrees and for mandibular incisor inclination 2.7 degrees and 1.4 degrees for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch groups, respectively. Improvement in patient perception of aesthetics after treatment was statistically significant for both groups (P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups for ABO CR-EVAL, percentage PAR score reduction, incisor inclination, and patient perception of treatment (P > 0.05). No adverse events were observed during treatment. LIMITATIONS: It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in the quality of occlusal outcomes, incisor inclination and patient perception of treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338. PROTOCOL: The protocol was published at DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-389.

Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances.

BACKGROUND: Initial arch wires are the first arch wires to be inserted into the fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment and are used mainly for the alignment of teeth by correcting crowding and rotations. With a number of different types of orthodontic arch wires available for initial tooth alignment, it is important to understand which wire is most efficient, as well as which wires cause least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. This is an update of the review entitledInitial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, which was first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of initial arch wires for the alignment of teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, in terms of the rate of tooth alignment, amount of root resorption accompanying tooth movement, and intensity of pain experienced by patients during the initial alignment stage of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 October 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 October 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 5 October 2017. The US National Institutes of Health 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: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initial arch wires to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. We included only studies involving participants with upper or lower, or both, full arch fixed orthodontic appliances. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were responsible for study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors. We contacted corresponding authors of included studies to obtain missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we found three new RCTs (228 participants), bringing the total to 12 RCTs with 799 participants. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias, and three to be at low risk of bias; six were unclear. None of the studies reported the adverse outcome of root resorption. The review assessed six comparisons.1. Multistrand stainless steel versus superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) arch wires. There were five studies in this group and it was appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of two of them. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and superelastic NiTi arch wires (mean difference (MD) -7.5 mm per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.27 to 11.27; 1 study, 48 participants; low-quality evidence). The findings for pain at day 1 as measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale suggested that there was no meaningful difference between the interventions (MD -2.68 mm, 95% CI -6.75 to 1.38; 2 studies, 127 participants; moderate-quality evidence).2. Multistrand stainless steel versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from the studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Pain was not measured.3. Conventional NiTi versus superelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is any difference between conventional and superelastic NiTi arch wires with regard to either alignment or pain (low- to very low-quality evidence).4. Conventional NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment between conventional and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Pain was not measured.5. Single-strand superelastic NiTi versus coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wires. There was only one study (24 participants) in this group. There is moderate-quality evidence that coaxial superelastic NiTi can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks (MD -6.76 mm, 95% CI -7.98 to -5.55). Pain was not measured.6. Superelastic NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment or pain between superelastic and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence shows that arch wires of coaxial superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks than arch wires made of single-strand superelastic NiTi. Moderate-quality evidence also suggests there may be no difference in pain at day 1 between multistrand stainless steel arch wires and superelastic NiTi arch wires. Other than these findings, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether any particular arch wire material is superior to any other in terms of alignment rate, time to alignment, pain and root resorption.

Soft tissue changes: a comparison between changes caused by the construction bite and by successful treatment with a modified Twin-block appliance.

Background/objectives: Functional appliances are commonly used to correct Class II malocclusion. This study aimed to compare the facial soft tissue changes in Caucasians between pre-treatment and with the construction bite versus pre-treatment and completion of treatment with a modified Twin-block appliance (MTBA). Materials and methods: Fifty-eight Caucasian subjects with Class II division 1 malocclusion had 3D stereophotogrammetric images captured pre-treatment (T1), with the construction bite (T2), and on completion of MTBA treatment (T3). Twenty-six landmarks were located on each image and 10% were re-landmarked 1 month later. Soft-tissue linear and volumetric changes (T1-T2 and T1-T3) were analyzed using linear mixed effect models (SAS® Version 9.4, www.sas.com). Results: Forty-seven subjects [mean age 13.2 (SD 1.7) years] completed treatment [mean duration 9.8 (SD 3.8) months]. Differences between the changes from T1 to T2 versus T1 to T3 for upper facial and upper lip landmarks were insignificant (all P > 0.05) except for nasion, orbitale right, pronasale, and subnasale. For the same comparisons, lower lip and chin landmarks changed significantly (all P < 0.05) as did facial soft tissue volume (P< 0.0001). Limitations: There was no control group. Conclusion: The facial soft tissue changes from pre-treatment to with the construction bite were considerably more than those from pre-treatment to completion of treatment with a MTBA. Implication: With MTBA treatment, the soft tissue changes from pre-treatment to with the construction bite in situ, overestimate those from pre- to post-treatment.

Three questionnaires to assess the perception of fixed orthodontic therapy before, during and after treatment: validity and reliability.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity and reliability of a series of three questionnaires for the quantification of patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study was carried out at the University of Dundee with content and face validity being assessed using proformas. Initially ten experts (Orthodontic Specialists) assessed content validity with 11 professionals (seven Orthodontic Specialists and four Postgraduates) and 20 patients assessing face validity. Content validity was determined according to the values of item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale-level CVI (S-CVI/Ave), while specially designed feedback forms were used for face validation. Internal consistency determined the reliability of the questionnaires according to the value of Cronbach alpha correlation coefficient test. The three questionnaires were then modified according to the recommendations of professionals and patients with seven experts reassessing content validity and ten newly selected patients assessing face validity. RESULTS: The first round of content validity revealed that around half of the items in the questionnaires were not valid. Therefore, the questionnaires were not valid as a whole (S-CVI/Ave = 0.60). After modifying the questionnaires and removing the non-valid items, the new versions of the Pre-treatment, Orthodontic Experience, and Post-treatment Questionnaires showed high levels of face validity, content validity (S-CVI/Ave: 0.99, 0.97, and 0.99, respectively) and good levels of internal consistency (α = 0.86, 0.78, and 0.88, respectively). LIMITATION: The patient sample was collected from a single university clinic and from one city within the UK and this could affect the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSION: Three content valid and reliable questionnaires have been developed and validated for the evaluation of patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. IMPLICATIONS: Unlike other tools that assess oral health-related quality of life, this series of three questionnaires assess the perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment before, during and after treatment.

The validity and reliability of an automated method of scoring dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate using the modified Huddart-Bodenham scoring system.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an automated software tool for the assessment of dental arch relationships using the modified Huddart and Bodenham (MHB) index. DESIGN: Cohort of 43 models of subjects aged 9-21 with UCLP and the ten GOSLON reference models sets. METHOD: The 53 sets of plaster models were scored using the MHB index and scanned with a benchtop scanner. The digital models were MHB scored visually using a commercial software program and landmarked for automatic scoring using a software plug-in. Scoring/landmarking was undertaken by three observers and repeated after 1 month. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility were tested using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (threshold > 0.9). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated inter-observer agreement for each model format. Random and systematic error with digital landmark identification error were determined using the x, y, and z co-ordinates for 28 models digitized twice 1 month apart using Cronbach's alpha and a t-test, respectively. RESULTS: Intra-operator landmark identification was excellent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.933) with no differences between sessions (P > 0.05). Intra-observer reproducibility was excellent for all examiners (Cronbach's alpha and ICC 0.986-0.988). Inter-observer reproducibility was highest for the software plug-in (0.991), followed by plaster (0.989) and OrthoAnalyzer (0.979) and Bland-Altman plots confirmed no systematic bias and greater consistency of scores with the automated software. CONCLUSION: The automated MHB software tool is valid, reproducible, and the most objective method of assessing maxillary arch constriction for patients with UCLP. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors declare no conflict of interest or financial relationship with any organization or software used within the study.

Non-surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment.

BACKGROUND: Accelerating the rate of tooth movement may help to reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment and associated unwanted effects including root resorption and enamel demineralisation. Several methods, including surgical and non-surgical adjuncts, have been advocated to accelerate the rate of tooth movement. Non-surgical techniques include low-intensity laser irradiation, resonance vibration, pulsed electromagnetic fields, electrical currents and pharmacological approaches. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of non-surgical adjunctive interventions on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and the overall duration of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 25 November 2014: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to November 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to November 2014), LILACS via BIREME (1980 to November 2014), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (November 2014), the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov; November 2014) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (November 2014). We checked the reference lists of all trials identified for further studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people receiving orthodontic treatment using fixed appliances along with non-surgical adjunctive interventions to accelerate tooth movement. We excluded non-parallel design studies (for example, split-mouth) as we regarded them as inappropriate for assessment of the effects of this type of intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were responsible for study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction; they carried out these tasks independently. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion amongst the review team to reach consensus. The review authors contacted the corresponding authors of trials to obtain missing information and data to allow calculation of mean differences (MD), 95% confidence intervals (CI) or risk ratios (RR) when these were not reported. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies in this review, which were both assessed as being at high risk of bias. The two studies, involving a total of 111 participants, compared the use of Tooth Masseuse and OrthoAccel with conventional treatment mechanics during orthodontic alignment and canine retraction phases, respectively. Both studies included objective assessment of the amount or rate of tooth movement, but we were not able to meta-analyse this data as they used different outcome measurements at different stages of the orthodontic treatment process. One study measured subjective evaluation of pain and discomfort and the other evaluated adverse effects. The studies did not directly report either the duration of orthodontic treatment or the number of visits during active treatment.Using the Tooth Masseuse with 111 Hz at 0.06 Newtons (N) for 20 minutes daily resulted in greater reduction in irregularity in the lower incisor region over 10 weeks, assessed using Little's Irregularity Index (LII) with a mean difference (MD) of 0.6 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.94 to 2.34) when compared to the control group. Pain and discomfort increased at six to eight hours after arch wire placement and after seven days, with minimal difference between the intervention and control groups. No statistical tests were provided for either variable and the differences between the two groups were not clinically important.Using OrthoAccel with 30 Hz at 0.25 N for 20 minutes daily produced a higher rate of maxillary canine distalisation in comparison to the control group (MD 0.37 mm/month; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.81; P = 0.05). Whilst this difference suggested 50% faster tooth movement using the vibrational appliance, the absolute differences were marginal and deemed clinically unimportant. Similar levels of non-serious adverse effects were reported in the intervention and control groups with a risk ratio of 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 2.85).Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low and therefore we cannot rely on the findings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very little clinical research concerning the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions to accelerate orthodontic treatment. The available evidence is of very low quality and so it is not possible to determine if there is a positive effect of non-surgical adjunctive interventions to accelerate tooth movement. Although there have been claims that there may be a positive effect of light vibrational forces, results of the current studies do not reach either statistical or clinical significance. Further well-designed and rigorous RCTs with longer follow-up periods are required to determine whether non-surgical interventions may result in a clinically important reduction in the duration of orthodontic treatment, without any adverse effects.

Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome: a case report.

Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome (ARS) is a rare autosomal dominant condition manifesting as a heterogeneous group of features. Of particular note are the ocular and craniofacial anomalies and dental features such as hypodontia, microdontia, taurodontism, enamel hypoplasia, conical-shaped teeth, shortened roots and delayed eruption. To treat cases with ARS effectively, a multidisciplinary approach is required, and this report describes the complex and long-term management of a case with input from Paediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics, Restorative Dentistry, Speech and Language Therapy, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Radiology.

Orthodontic scanners: what's available?

The popularity and availability of virtual technology in orthodontics for the replacement of hard-copy records with electronic records is growing rapidly, with a move towards a 'digital' patient for diagnosis, treatment planning, monitoring of treatment progress and outcome. As part of this ongoing development, three-dimensional digital models of the dental arches have the potential to replace traditional plaster models and their associated limitations for treatment planning, appliance construction and simulated treatment outcomes. This article provides the reader with a summary of the currently available benchtop model scanners and intraoral scanners. It is likely that this technology will become increasingly common-place within the orthodontic profession over the next decade.

The effect of smiling on facial asymmetry in adults: a 3D evaluation.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Mild resting facial asymmetry exists in clinically symmetrical faces, but the effect of smiling on the magnitude of overall facial asymmetry in adults has not been assessed. The aim of the present study was to use stereophotogrammetry to quantify the effect of smiling on overall facial asymmetry in Caucasian adults who presented with Class I incisor relationships and no history of orthodontic treatment. METHODS: Twenty male and 20 female Caucasians aged 1 8-30 years with no history of orthodontic treatment, a clinically symmetrical face and a Class I incisor relationship had 3D stereophotogrammetric images captured at rest and on natural and maximal smile (T1). The images were repeated 2-4 weeks later (T2) to assess expression reproducibility. Overall facial asymmetry scores were produced from 27 landmarks using partial Ordinary Procrustes Analysis (OPA) and assessed by an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model. A random sample of the images was re-examined two months later to calculate intraobserver landmark reproducibility. RESULTS: Mean landmark error was low (0.41 ± 0.07 mm). Mean overall facial asymmetry scores were not significantly gender different (p = 0.5300); therefore, the male and female data were pooled. Mean overall facial asymmetry scores for maximal (0.91 ± 0.16) and natural smile (0.88 ± 0.18) were higher than at rest (0.80 ± 0.17) (p < 0.0001) and were reproducible across (T1-T2) sessions (p = 0.3204). CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Overall 3D facial asymmetry scores for the sampled Caucasian adults with clinically symmetrical faces increased in magnitude from rest to natural and to maximal smile. Clinicians should assess overall facial asymmetry at rest and on natural and maximal smile at baseline, during treatment and as part of a core outcome assessment, particularly for cases with unilateral posterior crossbite, unilateral cleft lip and palate or skeletal asymmetry.

Localization of ectopic maxillary canines -- is CBCT more accurate than conventional horizontal or vertical parallax?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of cone-beam CT (CBCT) with conventional horizontal and vertical parallax for the localization of ectopic maxillary canines. DESIGN: Observational study. METHODS: A typodont was constructed using human teeth embedded in radio-dense impression material, containing a simulated ectopic canine. Image sets (vertical/horizontal parallax and CBCT scans) were obtained for nine positions. A photograph confirmed the true position of the canine. Six observers used horizontal (HP) and vertical (VP) parallax techniques with conventional radiographs and the axial, coronal and sagittal CBCT views to locate the canine tip. Images were manipulated as required using proprietary software (http://www.carestream.com and http://www.i-cat.com). Intra-observer reproducibility was calculated by one observer re-evaluating the image sets after 2 months. Individual observer validity was calculated in relation to the photographic position of the canine using weighted Kappa. Differences in the proportion of correct locations between CBCT and vertical/horizontal parallax were tested using McNemar tests (P<0·05). RESULTS: Intra- and inter-observer agreements were excellent (0·8985) and substantial (0·7528), respectively. Individual observer validity was substantial-excellent (0·7368-0·900). The canine position was correctly identified in 94% of cases located using CBCT, 83% using HP and 65% using VP. The differences between CBCT and vertical and horizontal parallax were highly statistically significant (P<0·01). CONCLUSION: CBCT is more accurate than either horizontal or vertical parallax for the localization of ectopic maxillary canine teeth.

Tooth size discrepancies in Class II division 1 and Class III malocclusion requiring surgical-orthodontic or orthodontic treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare mean anterior (AR) and mean overall (OR) tooth size ratios, prevalence of clinically significant tooth size discrepancies (TSDs) and correlation between AR and OR in subjects with Class II division 1 and Class III malocclusion treated by surgical-orthodontic or orthodontic means. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional. SETTING: State-funded and private clinics. PARTICIPANTS: From pre-treatment cohorts of 770 surgical and 610 non-surgical subjects, Class II division 1 and Class III malocclusion groups were identified with 60 surgical and 60 non-surgical subjects, comprising 30 males and 30 females, in each. METHODS: AR and OR were calculated by landmarking digital models. Differences in AR and OR and their relationship were analysed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a correlation coefficient, respectively. The proportions of the surgical and non-surgical groups with a TSD were assessed using logistic regression. Intra-examiner reproducibility involved re-landmarking 30 randomly selected image sets and differences in ARs and ORs were compared using a paired t-test. Random error was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Analyses were performed using SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) at the 5% level of significance. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences associated with the measurement of either the mean AR (P = 0·913) or the mean OR (P = 0·874). ICC values were very high (AR = 0·95; OR = 0·90). Differences existed between both Class II and Class III surgical (AR: P<0·001; OR: P<0·001) and non-surgical groups (AR: P = 0·012; OR: P = 0·003). The AR and OR relationship was strong (correlation coefficient = 0·72). The highest percentage of clinically significant TSDs was seen in the AR of both Class II and Class III surgical groups (23·3%). CONCLUSIONS: In the cohort examined: AR and OR differed significantly for malocclusion groups. The prevalence of clinically significant TSDs did not differ significantly between surgical and non-surgical groups although the highest percentage of clinically significant TSDs was recorded for AR in Class II and Class III surgical cases. AR and OR were closely related.

Initial arch wires for tooth alignment during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances.

BACKGROUND: Initial arch wires are the first arch wires to be inserted into the fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment and are used mainly for the alignment of teeth by correcting crowding and rotations. With a number of different types of orthodontic arch wires available for initial tooth alignment, it is important to understand which wire is most efficient, as well as which wires cause the least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. This is an update of the review 'Initial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces' first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of initial arch wires for alignment of teeth with fixed orthodontic braces in relation to alignment speed, root resorption and pain intensity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 2 August 2012), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 2 August 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 2 August 2012). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. We contacted all authors of included studies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initial arch wires to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. Only studies involving participants with upper and/or lower full arch fixed orthodontic appliances were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were responsible for study selection, validity assessment and data extraction. All disagreements were resolved by discussion amongst the review team. Corresponding authors of included studies were contacted to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs with 571 participants were included in this review. All trials were at high risk of bias and a number of methodological limitations were identified. All trials had at least one potentially confounding factor (such as bracket type, slot size, ligation method, extraction of teeth) which is likely to have influenced the outcome and was not controlled in the trial. None of the trials reported the important adverse outcome of root resorption.Three groups of comparisons were made.(1) Multistrand stainless steel initial arch wires compared to superelastic nickel titanium (NiTi) initial arch wires. There were four trials in this group, with different comparisons and outcomes reported at different times. No meta-analysis was possible. There is insufficient evidence from these trials to determine whether or not there is a difference in either rate of alignment or pain between stainless steel and NiTi initial arch wires.(2) Conventional (stabilised) NiTi initial arch wires compared to superelastic NiTi initial arch wires. There were two trials in this group, one reporting the outcome of alignment over 6 months and the other reporting pain over 1 week. There is insufficient evidence from these trials to determine whether or not there is any difference between conventional (stabilised) and superelastic NiTi initial arch wires with regard to either alignment or pain.(3) Single-strand superelastic NiTi initial arch wires compared to other NiTi (coaxial, copper NiTi (CuNiTi) or thermoelastic) initial arch wires. The three trials in this comparison each compared a different product against single-strand superelastic NiTi. There is very weak unreliable evidence, based on one very small study (n = 24) at high risk of bias, that coaxial superelastic NiTi may produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks, but no information on associated pain or root resorption. This result should be interpreted with caution until further research evidence is available. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference between either thermoelastic or CuNiTi and superelastic NiTi initial arch wires. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no reliable evidence from the trials included in this review that any specific initial arch wire material is better or worse than another with regard to speed of alignment or pain. There is no evidence at all about the effect of initial arch wire materials on the important adverse effect of root resorption. Further well-designed and conducted, adequately-powered, RCTs are required to determine whether the performance of initial arch wire materials as demonstrated in the laboratory, makes a clinically important difference to the alignment of teeth in the initial stage of orthodontic treatment in patients.