Mandibular advancement analysis among orthodontists, lay people and patients in class II malocclusion subjects. A three-dimensional imaging study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the acceptance of orthodontists, laypeople and the patient when progressive mandibular advancements are performed in class II subjects with mandibular retrognathism. SETTING AND SAMPLE: 3D images were obtained by an optical surface scanning of fifteen individuals (12 males and three females, mean age of 23 years and 8 months) with mandibular retrognathism in three mandibular positions: maximum intercuspation (MIC) and progressive mandibular advancement of 2 and 4 mm. METHODS: The images (n = 45) were evaluated through a scale by two groups of panellist, 20 orthodontists, 20 laypeople and by the patients themselves (n = 15). The participants evaluated and rated each video and give scores between 0 and 10, according to their perception of facial harmony. MANOVA for repeated measures was used for intra- and intergroup differences and to evaluate the patients' self-perception. RESULTS: Laypeople reported better face acceptance than orthodontists in MIC and progressive mandibular advancement of 2 and 4 mm (P < .0001). 80% of the patients evaluated their own face as pleasant in MIC. Around half of them did not note significant difference following mandibular advancement of 2 mm as compared with MIC and even two-third attributed lower scores when the mandible was advanced 4 mm. CONCLUSION: A high variability was observed among all groups of raters. Patient´s opinion should be taken into account when mandibular advancement of 4 mm or more is planned. This study suggests that a thorough discussion of facial changes resulting from mandibular advancement should be carried out among professionals, parents and patients.

The effect of extraction of lower primary canines on the morphology of dental arch: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The beneficial effect of the extraction of primary canines in the resolution of incisor irregularity and its side effects are controversial. AIM: To systematically review the effects of the extraction of primary canines in incisor irregularity and dental arch morphology. DESIGN: Controlled non-randomized (non-RCT) and randomized clinical trials (RCT) evaluating children treated with extraction of primary canines compared with those without intervention. RESULTS: A total of 984 articles were found, of which two RCTs and one non-RCT met the inclusion criteria. Both had a low RoB. A high level of evidence was observed through GRADE. A meta-analysis showed the extraction of primary canines produced a significant decrease in incisor irregularity (95% CI: -3.56, -2.09 mm). This decrease, however, was associated with a reduction of arch length (95% CI: -1.58, -0.94 mm), intermolar width (95% CI: -0.61, -0.22 mm), and overjet (95% CI: -075, -018). A mild overbite increase was found (95% CI: 0.10, 0.76 mm). CONCLUSION: A high level of evidence showed that the extraction of primary canines improved incisor irregularity in the mixed dentition. Side effects included reduced arch length and intermolar width. A slight reduction in overjet and a mild increase in overbite were also observed. When they are not part of the treatment goal, these occlusal changes can be prevented by installing a lingual arch.

Stainless steel or titanium mini-implants?

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether there was a difference in success rates when stainless steel (SS) was compared to titanium mini-implants (MIs) in orthodontic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials, and OpenGray were searched without restrictions. A manual search was also performed in the references of the included articles. Studies comparing the success rate between SS and titanium MIs were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions) Tool or RoB 2.0 according to the study design. The level of evidence was assessed through GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). RESULTS: Six studies met the eligibility criteria. One study was a randomized clinical trial that evaluated extraalveolar MIs, and nonrandomized trials examined interradicular MIs. The RCT presented a low RoB, two nonrandomized trials presented a moderate risk, and three presented a high risk. The quality of the evidence was high for the randomized clinical trial and moderate for the nonrandomized trials. Most studies found no difference between materials, with good success rates for both (SS, 74.6%-100%; titanium: 80.9%-100%) and only one study, with a high RoB, showed a higher success rate with titanium MIs (90%) when compared with SS (50%). A quantitative analysis was not because of the great heterogeneity among the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited, the current evidence seems to show that the material used is not a major factor in the success rate of MIs. Because it has a lower cost than titanium and presents similar clinical efficiency, SS is a great material for orthodontic MIs.

Is the extraction of third molars a risk factor for the temporomandibular disorders? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate through a systematic review the extraction of third molars as a risk factor for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: Randomized and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials where patients underwent third molar extraction and with qualitative evaluation of TMDs before and after extraction were included. RESULTS: After applying the inclusion criteria, seven nonrandomized clinical studies were included. QUIPS tool showed that four articles presented a moderate and three a high risk of bias (RoB). Six studies reported that TMDs presented higher level after removal of third molars ranging from OR, 1.81 to 2.15/RR, 2.1. However, one study showed no significant association. GRADE showed heterogeneity in relation to general results, which means that confidence in the estimated effects varied from low to moderate GRADE. The quality of clinical recommendations decreased especially due to the risk of bias in some of the included studies evaluated with the QUIPS tool. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Third molar extraction can be associated with the development of TMD signs and symptoms. Furthermore, TMD can be aggravated according to the third molar location, the degree of impaction and surgical difficulty, age, and gender. This systematic review highlights the need to perform randomized clinical trials with diagnostic criteria and standardized surgical procedures.

Prevalence and risk indicators of non-carious cervical lesions in male footballers.

BACKGROUND: Non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) have shown a significant incidence and prevalence and have been increasingly associated with people's lifestyles and youths. This cross-sectional study aimed to determine the prevalence of NCCLs in footballers and to address potential risk indicators. METHODS: Fourty-three male semi-professional footballers with an average of 27 years old completed a questionnaire and were subjected to intraoral examination in terms of cervical tooth wear, morphological characteristics of NCCLs, tooth sensitivity, occlusal/incisal wear, and malocclusion classification. Also, laboratory assays were performed to determine salivary parameters: flow rate, pH, buffer capacity, level of Ca (calcium), Na (sodium), and K (potassium) ions, and level of cortisol. The data obtained from the questionnaire and intraoral examinations were subjected to Chi-square and Poisson regression models while the data obtained from the laboratory assays were analyzed by using analysis of variance (p <  0.05). RESULTS: The prevalence of NCCLs was 39.5%. The participants presented predominantly initial lesions with signs of mechanical stress. The daily training time was found as a significant risk indicator (p = 0.028). The multivariate analysis showed a significant difference in the variables daily training time (p = 0.023), lemon water intake while fasting (p = 0.002), toothpaste type (p = 0.004), tooth sensitivity (p = 0.006); previous orthodontic treatment (p = 0.003), and occlusion type (p = 0.008). All participants presented normal salivary parameters and levels of cortisol. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of NCCLs among footballers was remarkable. The premolars were the most affected teeth and presented symptoms/signs of initial lesions. The daily training time was a dominant risk indicator of NCCLs development. Footballers presented adequate salivary parameters and cortisol levels.

Pain level between clear aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess if there is any difference in pain levels between orthodontic treatment with clear aligners or fixed appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was completed in PubMed, The Cochrane Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials, and OpenGrey databases without any restrictions until February 2019. All comparative study types contrasting pain levels between clear aligners and fixed appliances were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, ROBINS-I-Tool, or ROB 2.0 according to the study design. The level of evidence was assessed through the GRADE tool. RESULTS: After removal of duplicates, exclusion by title and abstract, and reading the full text, only seven articles were included. Five were prospective non-randomized clinical trials (CCT), one was a cross-sectional study, and one was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Two studies presented a high RoB, three a moderate RoB, and two a low RoB (including the RCT). A meta-analysis was not performed because of clinical, statistical, and methodological heterogeneity. Most of the studies found that pain levels in patients treated with Invisalign were lower than those treated with conventional fixed appliances during the first days of treatment. Differences disappeared thereafter. No evidence was identified for other brands of clear aligners. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a moderate level of certainty, orthodontic patients treated with Invisalign appear to feel lower levels of pain than those treated with fixed appliances during the first few days of treatment. Thereafter (up to 3 months), differences were not noted. Malocclusion complexity level among included studies was mild. Pain is one of many considerations and predictability and technical outcome are more important, mainly considering that the difference does not seem to occur after the first months of the orthodontic treatment.