Clinical outcomes of lingual fully customized vs labial straight wire systems : Assessment based on American Board of Orthodontics criteria.

PURPOSE: To evaluate orthodontic treatment outcome in patients treated with a lingual appliance (Incognito™ Appliance System, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) versus patients treated with a labial appliance (Victory series™, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). METHODS: A total of 72 patients were retrospectively analyzed. The complexity of each case was evaluated using the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Discrepancy Index (DI), and orthodontic clinical outcomes were evaluated using the ABO Objective Grading System (cast-radiograph evaluation: C­R Eval). RESULTS: The mean total ABO C­R Eval score was 16 ± 9.1 in the labial appliance group and 12.7 ± 5.4 in lingual appliance group (p = 0.152). The mean total ABO-DI scores were 16.3 ± 7.3 and 15.4 ± 6.6 in the labial and lingual appliance groups, respectively (p = 0.445). A significant correlation was observed between the total DI and total C­R Eval scores. CONCLUSIONS: In this particular study and in the hands of two experienced orthodontists, no differences in the finishing quality of orthodontic treatments using the lingual technique or the buccal appliance technique were found. However, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are necessary in order to generalize these results.

A systematic review of the accuracy and efficiency of dental movements with Invisalign®.

We are currently living in an era where the use of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing has allowed individualized orthodontic treatments, but has also incorporated enhanced digitalized technology that does not permit improvisation. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze publications that assessed the accuracy and efficiency of the Invisalign® system. A systematic review was performed using a search strategy to identify articles that referenced Invisalign®, which were published between August 2007 and August 2017, and listed in the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, and LILACS. Additionally, a manual search of clinical trials was performed in scientific journals and other databases. To rate the methodological quality of the articles, a grading system described by the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care was used, in combination with the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment. We selected 20 articles that met the inclusion criteria and excluded 5 due to excess biases. The level of evidence was high. Although it is possible to treat malocclusions with plastic systems, the results are not as accurate as those achieved by treatment with fixed appliances.

Effectiveness of lingual versus labial fixed appliances in adults according to the Peer Assessment Rating index.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of lingual treatment and labial fixed appliances in the treatment of adult orthodontic patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 72 patients. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was measured at the start (T0) and end (T1) of treatment. Significant differences between treatment means were determined by means of analysis of variancewith the Bonferroni correction or with the use of Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The lingual group had a mean pretreatment age of 28.6 ± 6.7 years, and the labial group had a pretreatment age of 26.6 ± 9.5 years. This difference was statistically not significant. The mean pre- and posttreatment PAR scores in the labial group were 22.9 ± 6.2 and 2.1 ± 2.3, respectively, and the mean pre- and posttreatment PAR scores in the lingual group were 26.5 ± 8.3 and 2.3 ± 2.5. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Lingual and labial appliances produced similar reductions in PAR scores. There was no difference in the posttreatment PAR scores between the lingual and labial treatment groups. Further studies involving larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required to confirm the results obtained.

Effect of saliva contamination on bracket failure with a self-etching primer: a prospective controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo the effect of saliva contamination at different stages of the bonding procedure on the bond failure rate and the adhesive remaining on teeth after debonding brackets bonded with a hydrophilic self-etching primer (Transbond Plus self-etching primer [TSEP], 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). METHODS: This was a prospective controlled clinical trial. The sample consisted of 46 patients with similar treatment plans and mechanotherapies. Stainless steel brackets (n = 531) were bonded with TSEP. The patients were divided into 2 groups: contamination with saliva before TSEP application and contamination with saliva after TSEP application. In both groups, saliva was applied in a split-mouth design. Diagonally opposite quadrants were allocated to either the contaminated group (contamination before [153 teeth] or after [115 teeth] TSEP application) or to the uncontaminated control group (263 teeth). Recording of failed brackets involved only first-time failures, and the observation period was a minimum of 6 months. RESULTS: The chi-squared test showed no significant differences (P = 0.11) in bracket failures between the groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis detected no significant differences in the survival rates between the 3 groups (P = 0.51). Most bond failures occurred during the first 3 months. In all 3 groups, the adhesive remaining on teeth after debonding tended to be less than half. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that saliva contamination before or after application of self-etching primer does not increase the clinical risk of bond failure.