Mixed reality-based technology to visualize and facilitate treatment planning of impacted teeth: Proof of concept.

OBJECTIVE: We propose a method utilizing mixed reality (MR) goggles (HoloLens 2, Microsoft) to facilitate impacted canine alignment, as planning the traction direction and force delivery could benefit from 3D data visualization using mixed reality (MR). METHODS: Cone-beam CT scans featuring isometric resolution and low noise-to-signal ratio were semi-automatically segmented in Inobitec software. The exported 3D mesh (OBJ file) was then optimized for the HoloLens 2. Using the Unreal Engine environment, we developed an application for the HoloLens 2, implementing HoloLens SDK and UX Tools. Adjustable pointers were added for planning attachment placement, traction direction, and point of force application. The visualization was presented to participants of a course on impacted teeth treatment, followed by a 10-question survey addressing potential advantages (5-point scale: 1 = totally agree, 5 = totally disagree). RESULTS: Out of 38 respondents, 44.7% were orthodontists, 34.2% dentists, 15.8% dental students, and 5.3% dental technicians. Most respondents (44.7%) were between 35 and 44 years old, and only 1 (2.6%) respondent was 55-64 years old. Median answers for six questions were 'totally agree' (25th percentile 1, 75th percentile 2) and for four questions 'agree' (25th percentile 1, 75th percentile 2). No correlation was found between age, profession, and responses. CONCLUSION: Our method generated substantial interest among clinicians. The initial responses affirm the potential benefits, supporting the continued exploration of MR-based techniques for the treatment of impacted teeth. However, the recommendation for widespread use awaits validation through clinical trials.

Does the application of autologous injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin (i-PRF) affect the patient's daily performance during the retraction of upper canines? A single-centre randomized split-mouth controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have assessed different aspects concerning the applications of i-PRF in the oral cavity. However, nothing is known regarding patients' perceptions of the injection of autologous platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF). OBJECTIVES: To investigate patients' perceptions after injecting platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) in the course of retracting upper canines. METHODS: Twenty-one patients, whose treatments required extractions of both upper first premolars, were recruited. Extraction side was randomly allocated to the intervention or control sides. After the alignment phase, i-PRF was injected twice with a one-month interval on the buccal and palatal aspects of the extraction sites (intervention side). Patients' perceptions were evaluated with two questionnaires: the first was used to assess the level of pain, discomfort, swelling, eating and swallowing difficulties as well as jaw movement restriction after 1 h (T1), 2 h (T2), 6 h (T3), 24 h (T4) and 48 h (T5) of the second injection; the second questionnaire was used to assess the acceptance of the i-PRF injection and overall satisfaction with this technique at the end of canine retraction phase. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was adopted for this purpose. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to compare between both sides at all time points while Friedman's Test was the selected test for detecting variables' changes over time. Post-hoc Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Tests were applied when any of the results were significant. As to the multiplicity of tests, Bonferroni Correction was implemented. RESULTS: Pain and swelling levels were significantly higher on the experimental compared to the control sides at T1, T2, and T3 (P < 0.05), whereas they declined sharply and went back to almost normal values at T4 (after 24 h). At T5 they were 0. Discomfort and difficulty in mastication on intervention sides were significant only at T1 and T2. Pain, swelling, and chewing difficulties were significant (P < 0.001) during the 4 assessed time points. The increase was insignificant regarding swallowing difficulties and jaw movement limitations at all time intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Injecting autologous (i-PRF) during orthodontic canine retraction is a well-perceived and well-tolerated method due to the limited discomfort which significantly diminishes 24 h afterwards. TRIAL'S REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier Number: NCT03399422. 16/01/2018).

Association of 3-dimensional facial changes and height and weight increase in children: A 2-year follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate changes in facial size and shape in children and their relationship to the changes in height and weight. METHODS: One hundred and thirteen healthy children aged between 6 and 13 years were followed annually for 2 consecutive years. The facial morphology was captured in 12-month intervals (from T1 to T2 and from T2 to T3) using a 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric optical scanner; the body height and weight were recorded simultaneously. The changes in facial size and shape were analyzed with geometric morphometrics. Multiple regression mixed-effects models were exploited for evaluation of the association between the changes of facial size or shape and age at the beginning of the observation, gender, and change of height and weight. RESULTS: The centroid size (reflecting facial size) increased from T1 to T2 and T2 to T3 in boys and girls. In contrast, the facial shape did not change during both 12-month observation periods (T1 to T2 and T2 to T3) either in boys or girls. Of 2 multiple regression mixed-effects models, only the model with the change of natural logarithm of centroid size as a dependent variable was statistically significant (P <0.001; adjusted r2 = 0.29). It showed that height and weight changes were associated with a change of the facial size (with weight change having a greater effect than height change: adjusted r2 = 0.25 for weight change and adjusted r2 = 0.106 for height change). CONCLUSIONS: Most changes in the facial morphology observed in our cohort were associated with increasing facial size. In contrast, the shape of the face remained relatively constant. Body height and weight gains were associated with the change of the facial size only. However, only 29% of the variation in facial size was explained by height or weight changes during growth.

Craniofacial shape from pre- to post-adolescence.

AIM: Craniofacial growth demonstrates significant variation and is difficult to predict. The aim of the present investigation was twofold: (1) to assess the association (covariation) between craniofacial shape at pre- and post-adolescence and (2) to evaluate if pre-adolescent craniofacial shape is related (covaries) with growth magnitude and direction. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty subjects (86 males and 64 females) untreated orthodontically were selected from AAOF Craniofacial Growth Legacy Collection. Each subject had cephalograms taken before 9 (pre-adolescent stage) and after 15 years of age (post-adolescent). Fourteen curves comprising 123 points (10 fixed and 113 sliding semilandmarks) comprehensively covering the craniofacial skeleton were digitally traced on each cephalogram. Procrustes alignment, principal component analysis, 2-block partial least squares (2B-PLS) analysis, and regression analysis were done after sliding the semilandmarks to minimize bending energy. RESULTS: The first 16 principal components (PCs) were non-trivial and explained 85.2% of total shape variability in the sample. PC1 depicted mainly variability in the vertical direction, PC2 represented mostly variability in the saddle angle and in the antero-posterior position of the mandible, and PC3 depicted primarily variability of the mandibular shape (steep versus flat mandibular plane). The covariation between pre- and post-adolescent facial shape was statistically significant, both in the pooled sample (RV coefficient = 0.604) and in boys (RV = 0.639) and girls (RV = 0.629). The pre-adolescent shape was weakly associated with the magnitude of facial change-2-block PLS analysis demonstrated that blocks 1 and 2 were independent (P = 0.118, RV = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: The pre-adolescent shape of the craniofacial complex explained approximately 60% of the post-adolescent shape of the craniofacial complex; however, the relationship between pre-adolescent shape of the craniofacial complex and magnitude of its change was weak.

A comparative assessment of failures and periodontal health between 2 mandibular lingual retainers in orthodontic patients. A 2-year follow-up, single practice-based randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the survival rates and periodontal health in patients with 3-strand round twisted (RT) vs 8-strand rectangular braided (RB) fixed retainers bonded to all 6 anterior teeth in the mandible. METHODS: A total of 133 patients completing orthodontic treatment (median age, 24.6 years; 25th percentile, 17.2 years; 75th percentile, 32.4 years; minimum, 15.1 years; maximum, 49.8 years) were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either an RT or RB wire retainer. Inclusion criteria were all mandibular permanent incisors and canines present, no active caries, no restorations, no fractures on the mandibular incisors and canines, no periodontal disease. Patients with poor oral hygiene before debonding were excluded from the trial. The primary outcome was any first-time retainer failure. Secondary outcomes were periodontal index, bleeding on probing, plaque index, gingival index, and probing depth. Randomization was accomplished with random permuted blocks of size 4, 6, or 8 with allocation concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Blinding was not possible in this trial. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after placement of the retainer. Retainer survival was assessed using Cox regression. Periodontal parameters were reported at each time point and generalised estimating equations were used to assess the effect of treatment, time, tooth and treatment X time interaction on the indices. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; in 1 patient, the intervention was discontinued. During 2-year follow-up 37 of 66 (56.1%, RT group) and 32 of 66 (48.5%, RB group) retainers failed at least once (log-rank test, P = 0.55). The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.12; P = 0.13). Neither age nor gender was a predictor of failure. All periodontal parameters (periodontal index, bleeding on probing, plaque index, gingival index, and pocket depth) were comparable between groups and remained relatively stable during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The overall risk for first-time failure was high and amounted to 52.3% (56.1% in the RT group and 48.5% in the RB group). There was no difference in terms of survival or periodontal health between the examined retainers.

Morphological variability in unrepaired bilateral clefts with and without cleft palate evaluated with geometric morphometrics.

In subjects with orofacial clefts, there is an unresolved controversy on the effect of congenital maxillary growth deficiency vs. the effect of surgical intervention on the outcome of treatment. Intrinsic growth impairment in subjects with orofacial clefts can be studied by comparing facial morphology of subjects with untreated cleft and unaffected individuals of the same ethnic background. Bilateral cleft lip and palate is the most severe and least prevalent form of the orofacial cleft. The aim of this study was to compare facial morphology in subjects with unrepaired complete bilateral clefts and unaffected controls using geometric morphometrics. Lateral cephalograms of 39 Indonesian subjects with unrepaired bilateral complete cleft lip and alveolus (mean age: 24 years), or unrepaired bilateral complete cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (mean age: 20.6 years) and 50 age and ethnically matched controls without a cleft (25 males, 25 females, mean age: 21.2 years) were digitized and traced and shape variability was explored using principal component analysis, while differences between groups and genders were evaluated with canonical variate analysis. Individuals with clefts had a more pronounced premaxilla than controls. Principal component analysis showed that facial variation in subjects with clefts occurred in the anteroposterior direction, whereas in controls it was mostly in the vertical direction. Regression analysis with group, sex, and age as covariates and principal components from 1 to 6 as dependent variables demonstrated a very limited effect of the covariates on the facial shape variability (only 11.6% of the variability was explained by the model). Differences between cleft and non-cleft subjects in the direction of facial variability suggest that individuals with bilateral clefts can have an intrinsic growth impairment affecting facial morphology later in life.

Effects of Different Timing of Alveolar Bone Graft on Craniofacial Morphology in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the timing of secondary alveolar bone graft (SABG) on craniofacial morphology in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). DESIGN: Single-center retrospective assessment of consecutively treated nonsyndromic patients with complete UCLP. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixty-seven patients (108 males, 59 females) with complete UCLP in whom the cleft was repaired with 1-stage method at approximately 8 months of age. The age of 128 patients at SABG varied from 1.4 to 11.5 years (SABG group), while 39 patients still awaited SABG at the moment of cephalometric evaluation (no-SABG group). METHODS: Craniofacial morphology was assessed on lateral cephalograms taken at 10 years of age (standard deviation = 0.8; range: 7.5-12.3) using linear and angular measurements. T tests and regression models were made to analyze data. RESULTS: Regression models demonstrated that the effect of SABG on the craniofacial morphology was limited-cephalometric variables which were statistically significantly different between SABG and no-SABG groups showed no association with the timing of SABG when (1) age of primary repair of the cleft, (2) age of cephalometric evaluation, (3) cleft side, (4) gender, and (5) operator were controlled for. Only the length of the maxilla (Condylion-point A) was affected-1-year delay of SABG corresponded with an increase in Co-point A distance by 0.52 mm. However, adjusted R2 of the model was 0.11. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings cautiously indicate that SABG performed before 8 years of age can have limited negative effect on craniofacial morphology. Nevertheless, our results should be confirmed by cleft centers practicing alternative surgical repairs of the cleft.

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients.

BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and palate is one of the most common birth defects and can cause difficulties with feeding, speech and hearing, as well as psychosocial problems. Treatment of orofacial clefts is prolonged; it typically commences after birth and lasts until the child reaches adulthood or even into adulthood. Residual deformities, functional disturbances, or both, are frequently seen in adults with a repaired cleft. Conventional orthognathic surgery, such as Le Fort I osteotomy, is often performed for the correction of maxillary hypoplasia. An alternative intervention is distraction osteogenesis, which achieves bone lengthening by gradual mechanical distraction. This review is an update of the original version that was published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence regarding the effects and long-term results of maxillary distraction osteogenesis compared to orthognathic surgery for the treatment of hypoplastic maxilla in people with cleft lip and palate. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 May 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 May 2018), Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 May 2018), and LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; from 1982 to 15 May 2018). 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) comparing maxillary distraction osteogenesis to conventional Le Fort I osteotomy for the correction of cleft lip and palate maxillary hypoplasia in non-syndromic cleft patients aged 15 years or older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed studies for eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for clarification or missing information whenever possible. All standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane were used. MAIN RESULTS: We found six publications involving a total of 47 participants requiring maxillary advancement of 4 mm to 10 mm. All of them related to a single trial performed between 2002 and 2008 at the University of Hong Kong, but not all of the publications reported outcomes from all 47 participants. The study compared maxillary distraction osteogenesis with orthognathic surgery, and included participants from 13 to 45 years of age.Results and conclusions should be interpreted with caution given the fact that this was a single trial at high risk of bias, with a small sample size.The main outcomes assessed were hard and soft tissue changes, skeletal relapse, effects on speech and velopharyngeal function, psychological status, and clinical morbidities.Both interventions produced notable hard and soft tissue improvements. Nevertheless, the distraction group demonstrated a greater maxillary advancement, evaluated as the advancement of Subspinale A-point: a mean difference of 4.40 mm (95% CI 0.24 to 8.56) was recorded two years postoperatively.Horizontal relapse of the maxilla was significantly less in the distraction osteogenesis group five years after surgery. A total forward movement of A-point of 2.27 mm was noted for the distraction group, whereas a backward movement of 2.53 mm was recorded for the osteotomy group (mean difference 4.8 mm, 95% CI 0.41 to 9.19).No statistically significant differences could be detected between the groups in speech outcomes, when evaluated through resonance (hypernasality) at 17 months postoperatively (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.85) and nasal emissions at 17 months postoperatively (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 66.53), or in velopharyngeal function at the same time point (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.52).Maxillary distraction initially lowered social self-esteem at least until the distractors were removed, at three months postoperatively, compared to the osteotomy group, but this improved over time and the distraction group had higher satisfaction with life in the long term (two years after surgery) (MD 2.95, 95% CI 014 to 5.76).Adverse effects, in terms of clinical morbidities, included mainly occlusal relapse and mucosal infection, with the frequency being similar between groups (3/15 participants in the distraction osteogenesis group and 3/14 participants in the osteotomy group). There was no severe harm to any participant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found only one small randomised controlled trial concerning the effectiveness of distraction osteogenesis compared to conventional orthognathic surgery. The available evidence is of very low quality, which indicates that further research is likely to change the estimate of the effect. Based on measured outcomes, distraction osteogenesis may produce more satisfactory results; however, further prospective research comprising assessment of a larger sample size with participants with different facial characteristics is required to confirm possible true differences between interventions.

Epidemiologic study of orthodontic retention procedures.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to survey current retention procedures applied by Dutch orthodontists and to examine their acquaintance with "unintentionally active retainers." METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all 306 Dutch orthodontists involved in patient treatment. Questions were clustered in 4 parts: (1) general information, (2) retention procedures, (3) characteristics of wire materials for bonded retainers, and (4) acquaintance with "unintentionally active retainers." RESULTS: The response rate was 98%. The most applied retention modality in the maxillary arch was a combination of a removable and a bonded retainer (54%); in the mandibular arch, mainly a bonded retainer without a removable retainer was used (83%). Bonded retention was aimed to be lifelong for the maxillary arch (90%) and the mandibular arch (92%). Mean removable retention duration was 2 years. Vacuum-formed retainers were used more frequently and Hawley-type retainers less frequently. The wire materials used for bonded retainers were diverse. All orthodontists were familiar with unintentionally active retainers; 44% believed this phenomenon is caused by the properties of round multistrand wires. The opinion that unwanted changes in tooth position can arise due to the properties of round multistrand wire material was associated with changing the wire material (P <0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Lifelong retention with bonded retainers continues to increase. All orthodontists were acquainted with unintentionally active retainers and their impact. There is a need to identify all causative factors of inadvertent tooth movement in relation to bonded retainers and to prevent the onset of unintentionally active retainers.

Gingival recession in orthodontic patients 10 to 15 years posttreatment: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to retrospectively investigate the long-term development of gingival recession in a cohort of orthodontic patients and to compare the prevalence of gingival recession in orthodontically treated patients 10 to 15 years posttreatment to that of untreated subjects with malocclusion. METHODS: The sample included 88 patients with mean ages of 12.1 years (SD, 2.4 years) at pretreatment, 15.1 years (SD, 2.4 years) at posttreatment, and 27.9 years (SD, 2.5 years) 10 to 15 years posttreatment. The control group comprised 102 untreated patients seeking orthodontic treatment with a mean age of 28.7 years (SD, 3.1 years). Gingival recession was evaluated on study models. RESULTS: The prevalence of both labial/buccal and lingual/palatal gingival recession increased during orthodontic treatment with further increases during the long-term posttreatment period; 98.9% of the orthodontically treated participants had at least 1 labial/buccal recession, and 85.2% of the patients had at least 1 lingual/palatal recession 10 to 15 years posttreatment. In addition, the proportion of patients with multiple labial/buccal or lingual/palatal recession sites increased considerably in the same time period. The prevalences of labial/buccal gingival recession were similar in the orthodontically treated patients 10 to 15 years posttreatment and the untreated controls. Study group patients with a crossbite before treatment showed 2.73 more recessions (95% CI, 0.28-5.17; P = 0.029) than did those without a transverse discrepancy. Untreated subjects with crowding greater than 3 mm per arch had 3.29 more recessions (95% CI, 0.73-5.68; P = 0.012) to 4.92 more recession sites (95% CI, 1.70-8.15; P = 0.003) than did those with mild or no crowding. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it seems that, in regard to the prevalence of gingival recession, orthodontically treated patients are not compromised in the long term compared with those with malocclusion that was untreated for many years.

Tooth wear and gingival recession in 210 orthodontically treated patients: a retrospective cohort study.

Aim: To assess the association between tooth wear (TW) and gingival recession (GR). Materials and Methods: Two hundred and ten orthodontically treated participants (100 males) were evaluated. GR and TW were rated independently by four raters on plaster models at four time points: before treatment (T1), mean age 13.8 years (SD = 3.7); after treatment (T2), mean age 16.7 years (SD = 3.9); 3 years after treatment (T3), mean age 19.7 years (SD = 4.2); and 7 years after treatment (T4), mean age 23.9 years (SD = 4.8). Univariable and mulitvariable random effects logistic regression analyses were performed with scores for GR as dependent variables and with TW, age, gender, dental segments (maxillary and mandibular anterior and posterior segments), time points, and Angle classification as independent variables. Method reliability was assessed with kappa statistics. Results: Mandibular incisors, mandibular and maxillary first premolars and maxillary first molars were most vulnerable to GR. The prevalence of GR increased during the observation period. At T1 20.5% participants had one or more recession sites, at T4 85.7 % of the participants had at least one GR. There was evidence of association between moderate/severe TW and GR-for a tooth with moderate/severe wear, the odds of recession were 23% higher compared to a tooth with no/mild wear (odds ratio 1.23; 95% CI: 1.08-1.40; P = 0.002). Age, dental segment, and time were also significant recession predictors, whereas gender was not. Conclusions: There is evidence that moderate/severe TW is associated with the presence of gingival recession. Clinical significance of this can be limited.

Gingival recession in mandibular incisors and symphysis morphology-a retrospective cohort study.

Objective: To evaluate if the morphology of the mandibular symphysis is associated with the development of gingival recession. Materials and methods: A cohort of 177 patients was followed longitudinally for up to 5 years post-treatment. Based on the width of the symphysis, participants were divided into three groups: narrow (n = 57); average (n = 63), and wide symphysis (n = 57). Morphology of the symphysis and inclination of incisors were measured on lateral cephalometric radiographs before treatment (Ts), at the end of treatment (T0) and 5 years after treatment (T5). Gingival recession and the change of clinical crown heights in mandibular incisors were measured on plaster models made at TS, T0, and T5. Results: From TS to T5 the change in inclination was comparable in the narrow, average, and wide groups. At T5, gingival labial recession was present in 19.3 per cent of patients with narrow symphysis, 20.6 per cent with average symphysis, and 14 per cent of patients with wide symphysis. The difference was not significant. The mean change of clinical crown height was <1 mm (TS - T5). The regression model showed some evidence that incisor inclination at Ts might have been associated with the change of mean clinical crown height (-2.51, 95% CI: -4.6 to -0.4, P = 0.02). The logistic regression model demonstrated that H1 (Height 1) might be associated with the development of gingival recession (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.96, P = 0.03). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, there is no evidence that the overall morphology of the mandibular symphysis is associated with gingival recession development.

Comparison of Three Methods of Rating Nasolabial Appearance in Cleft Lip and Palate.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate which of three methods of rating nasolabial appearance-esthetic index, visual analogue scale (VAS), or numerical scale with reference photographs-is optimal. DESIGN: Experimental study. SETTING: Radboud University Medical Centre, The Netherlands and University of Bern, Switzerland. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Cropped photographs of 60 patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (mean age = 10.8 years) were used for rating. A panel of eight raters rated four components of nasolabial morphology (nasal shape, nose deviation, vermillion border, and profile view) using three methods: 5-point esthetic index, 100 mm VAS, and 0 to 200 numerical scale with reference photographs (reference scores method). Method reliability was assessed by re-evaluation of 20 images after >1 month. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate consistency of each method. RESULTS: Overall reference scores method always produced more reproducible results (i.e., higher ICCs) than did VAS or the esthetic index. However, statistically significant differences were found between reference scores and esthetic index in rating nasal shape, nose deviation, and vermillion border only (P < 0.001, <0.001, and 0.012, respectively) and between reference scores and VAS in rating nose deviation and vermillion border (P < 0.001 and 0.017, respectively). CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of reference photographs along with the VAS or numerical (from 0 to 200) semi-continuous scale. The esthetic index, based on a Likert-type scale, seems to produce the most variable results and, therefore, is not preferred.

A survey of general dentists regarding orthodontic retention procedures.

AIM: To explore 1. how Swiss general dentists deal with complications associated with fixed orthodontic retainers, 2. collaboration between general dentists and orthodontists with regards to the organization and responsibility for long-term follow-up of orthodontic retainers, and 3. the need for standardized clinical guidelines regarding orthodontic retention. METHODS: A structured questionnaire was sent to 201 randomly selected dentists. They were asked about their experience with retainers, opinions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different types of retainers, responsibility for patients wearing bonded retention and the communication between orthodontists and general dentists. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software. RESULTS: The response rate was 61 per cent. About 55 per cent of the respondents had had experience with bonding fixed retainers and even more were familiar with their follow-up and repair. In case of complications, dentists usually contacted orthodontists according to the following rule: the more severe the complication, the more intense the communication. Most dentists hesitated to remove retainers when requested to do so by the patient and attempted to convince them to continue wearing them. Retainers bonded to all six anterior teeth were considered more efficient than those bonded to canines only; however, possible side effects (e.g. unwanted changes of the torque) were not well known. 66.4 per cent respondents were willing to take responsibility for patients in retention as early as 6 months after retainer placement. 93.2 per cent respondents would welcome the establishment of standardized guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Swiss general dentists have good knowledge of orthodontic retention and follow-up procedures. Nevertheless, introduction of clinical guidelines including information on the possible side-effects of bonded retention is justified.

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients.

BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and palate is one of the most common birth defects and can cause difficulties with feeding, speech and hearing, as well as psychosocial problems. Treatment of orofacial clefts is prolonged; it typically commences after birth and lasts until the child reaches adulthood or even into adulthood. Residual deformities, functional disturbances, or both, are frequently seen in adults with a repaired cleft. Conventional orthognathic surgery, such as Le Fort I osteotomy, is often performed for the correction of maxillary hypoplasia. An alternative intervention is distraction osteogenesis, which achieves bone lengthening by gradual mechanical distraction. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence regarding the effects and long-term results of maxillary distraction osteogenesis compared to orthognathic surgery for the treatment of hypoplastic maxilla in people with cleft lip and palate. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 February 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 February 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 February 2016), LILACS BIREME (1982 to 16 February 2016), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) (to 16 February 2016), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 16 February 2016). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the electronic searches. We performed handsearching of six speciality journals and we checked the reference lists of all trials identified for further studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing maxillary distraction osteogenesis to conventional Le Fort I osteotomy for the correction of cleft lip and palate maxillary hypoplasia in non-syndromic cleft patients aged 15 years or older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed studies for eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for clarification or missing information whenever possible. All standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane were used. MAIN RESULTS: We found six publications involving a total of 47 participants requiring maxillary advancement of 4 mm to 10 mm. All of them related to a single trial performed between 2002 and 2008 at the University of Hong Kong, but not all of the publications reported outcomes from all 47 participants. The study compared maxillary distraction osteogenesis with orthognathic surgery, and included participants from 13 to 45 years of age.Results and conclusions should be interpreted with caution given the fact that this was a single trial at high risk of bias, with a small sample size.The main outcomes assessed were hard and soft tissue changes, skeletal relapse, effects on speech and velopharyngeal function, psychological status, and clinical morbidities.Both interventions produced notable hard and soft tissue improvements. Nevertheless, the distraction group demonstrated a greater maxillary advancement, evaluated as the advancement of Subspinale A-point: a mean difference of 4.40 mm (95% CI 0.24 to 8.56) was recorded two years postoperatively.Horizontal relapse of the maxilla was significantly less in the distraction osteogenesis group five years after surgery. A total forward movement of A-point of 2.27 mm was noted for the distraction group, whereas a backward movement of 2.53 mm was recorded for the osteotomy group (mean difference 4.8 mm, 95% CI 0.41 to 9.19).No statistically significant differences could be detected between the groups in speech outcomes, when evaluated through resonance (hypernasality) at 17 months postoperatively (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.85) and nasal emissions at 17 months postoperatively (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 66.53), or in velopharyngeal function at the same time point (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.52).Maxillary distraction initially lowered social self-esteem at least until the distractors were removed, at three months postoperatively, compared to the osteotomy group, but this improved over time and the distraction group had higher satisfaction with life in the long term (two years after surgery) (MD 2.95, 95% CI 014 to 5.76).Adverse effects, in terms of clinical morbidities, included mainly occlusal relapse and mucosal infection, with the frequency being similar between groups (3/15 participants in the distraction osteogenesis group and 3/14 participants in the osteotomy group). There was no severe harm to any participant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found only one small randomised controlled trial concerning the effectiveness of distraction osteogenesis compared to conventional orthognathic surgery. The available evidence is of very low quality, which indicates that further research is likely to change the estimate of the effect. Based on measured outcomes, distraction osteogenesis may produce more satisfactory results; however, further prospective research comprising assessment of a larger sample size with participants with different facial characteristics is required to confirm possible true differences between interventions.

Non-pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment.

BACKGROUND: Pain is prevalent during orthodontics, particularly during the early stages of treatment. To ensure patient comfort and compliance during treatment, the prevention or management of pain is of major importance. While pharmacological means are the first line of treatment for alleviation of orthodontic pain, a range of non-pharmacological approaches have been proposed recently as viable alternatives. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions to alleviate pain associated with orthodontic treatment. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 6 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 6 October 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 6 October 2016) and EThOS (to 6 October 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a non-pharmacological orthodontic pain intervention to a placebo, no intervention or another non-pharmacological pain intervention were eligible for inclusion. We included any type of orthodontic treatment but excluded trials involving the use of pre-emptive analgesia or pain relief following orthognathic (jaw) surgery or dental extractions in combination with orthodontic treatment. We excluded split-mouth trials (in which each participant receives two or more treatments, each to a separate section of the mouth) and cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used the random-effects model and expressed results as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We investigated heterogeneity with reference to both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs that randomised 931 participants. Interventions assessed included: low-level laser therapy (LLLT) (4 studies); vibratory devices (5 studies); chewing adjuncts (3 studies); brain wave music or cognitive behavioural therapy (1 study) and post-treatment communication in the form of a text message (1 study). Twelve studies involved self-report assessment of pain on a continuous scale and two studies used questionnaires to assess the nature, intensity and location of pain.We combined data from two studies involving 118 participants, which provided low-quality evidence that LLLT reduced pain at 24 hours by 20.27 mm (95% CI -24.50 to -16.04, P < 0.001; I² = 0%). LLLT also appeared to reduce pain at six hours, three days and seven days.Results for the other comparisons assessed are inconclusive as the quality of the evidence was very low. Vibratory devices were assessed in five studies (272 participants), four of which were at high risk of bias and one unclear. Chewing adjuncts (chewing gum or a bite wafer) were evaluated in three studies (181 participants); two studies were at high risk of bias and one was unclear. Brain wave music and cognitive behavioural therapy were evaluated in one trial (36 participants) assessed at unclear risk of bias. Post-treatment text messaging (39 participants) was evaluated in one study assessed at high risk of bias.Adverse effects were not measured in any of the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results are inconclusive. Although available evidence suggests laser irradiation may help reduce pain during orthodontic treatment in the short term, this evidence is of low quality and therefore we cannot rely on the findings. Evidence for other non-pharmacological interventions is either very low quality or entirely lacking. Further prospective research is required to address the lack of reliable evidence concerning the effectiveness of a range of non-pharmacological interventions to manage orthodontic pain. Future studies should use prolonged follow-up and should measure costs and possible harms.

Rating dental arch relationships and palatal morphology with the EUROCRAN index on three different formats of dental casts in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

BACKGROUND: The EUROCRAN index has been used in inter-center studies to assess dental arch relationship (DAR) and palatal morphology (PM) in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). For this type of inter-center research, a scoring method that could be performed over the internet would be the most effective. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of application of the EUROCRAN index on 3D digital models or photographs of plaster models instead of using plaster models. METHODS: The EUROCRAN reference models were presented in three formats: plaster models, 2D photographs of plaster models, and 3D digital models. Plaster models of children with UCLP (n = 45) were rated. Of each case, all three formats were rated by six calibrated observers in random order. The strength of agreement of the ratings was assessed with kappa statistics. Concordance among observers was evaluated with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The ICC showed a good inter-observer agreement for the DAR and poor inter-observer agreement for the PM. Intra-observer agreement for the DAR was moderate to very good, yet for the PM poor to moderate. Comparison between the three formats per observer for the DAR was good or very good and for the PM moderate to poor. CONCLUSIONS: The overall results show that the EUROCRAN index is an acceptable and reliable scoring method for the DAR on plaster models, 2D photographs of plaster models, and 3D digital models. However, due to the small range of deviations in palatal morphology between the cases in our study, the PM component of the index was difficult to assess. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In clinical audits and inter-center studies, plaster models can be substituted by 2D photographs of plaster casts or 3D digital models when grading treatment outcome with the EUROCRAN index.

Judgment of Nasolabial Esthetics in Cleft Lip and Palate Is Not Influenced by Overall Facial Attractiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether judgment of nasolabial esthetics in cleft lip and palate (CLP) is influenced by overall facial attractiveness. DESIGN: Experimental study. SETTING: University of Bern, Switzerland. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Seventy-two fused images (36 of boys, 36 of girls) were constructed. Each image comprised (1) the nasolabial region of a treated child with complete unilateral CLP (UCLP) and (2) the external facial features, i.e., the face with masked nasolabial region, of a noncleft child. Photographs of the nasolabial region of six boys and six girls with UCLP representing a wide range of esthetic outcomes, i.e., from very good to very poor appearance, were randomly chosen from a sample of 60 consecutively treated patients in whom nasolabial esthetics had been rated in a previous study. Photographs of external facial features of six boys and six girls without UCLP with various esthetics were randomly selected from patients' files. Eight lay raters evaluated the fused images using a 100-mm visual analogue scale. Method reliability was assessed by reevaluation of fused images after >1 month. A regression model was used to analyze which elements of facial esthetics influenced the perception of nasolabial appearance. RESULTS: Method reliability was good. A regression analysis demonstrated that only the appearance of the nasolabial area affected the esthetic scores of fused images (coefficient = -11.44; P < .001; R(2) = 0.464). The appearance of the external facial features did not influence perceptions of fused images. CONCLUSION: Cropping facial images for assessment of nasolabial appearance in CLP seems unnecessary. Instead, esthetic evaluation can be performed on images of full faces.

Transplant vs implant in a patient with agenesis of both maxillary lateral incisors: A 9-year follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: Agenesis of a maxillary lateral incisor occurs in about 2% of the population. Treatment options should adapt to natural biologic changes in a lifelong perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: A young woman with bilateral agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisors was treated with transplantation of a developing maxillary third molar on one side and a dental implant on the contralateral side, after orthodontic space opening. The periodontal examination, including bacterial testing of the transplant, the implant, and the control central incisor, was performed 9 years after the treatment. A radiologic assessment was also performed. The transplanted tooth did not differ from a natural incisor, except for the pulp obliteration, and the total bacteria count was higher at the implant site. The periodontal tissues around the implant showed progressive signs of recession. CONCLUSIONS: Both tooth transplants and dental implants for replacing missing maxillary incisors can be effective in the long term. This report supports natural tooth substitution rather than implant placement for dental agenesis in the anterior maxilla.

Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Judgement of nasolabial aesthetics in cleft lip and palate (CLP) is a vital component of assessment of treatment outcome. It is usually performed based on two-dimensional (2D) facial photographs. An increasing use of three-dimensional (3D) imaging warrants an assessment if 3D images can substitute 2D photographs during aesthetic evaluation. The aim of this study was to compare reliability of rating nasolabial appearance on 3D images and standard 2D photographs in prepubertal children. METHODS: Forty subjects (age: 8.8-12) with unilateral CLP treated according to a standardized protocol, who had 2D and 3D facial images were selected. Eight lay raters assessed nasal form, nasal deviation, vermilion border, and nasolabial profile on cropped 2D and 3D images using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Additionally, raters answer two questions: 1. Do 2D or 3D images provide more information on nasolabial aesthetics? and 2. Is aesthetic evaluation easier on 2D or 3D images? RESULTS: Intrarater agreement demonstrated a better reliability of ratings performed on 3D images than 2D images (correlation coefficients for 3D images ranged from 0.733 to 0.857; for 2D images from 0.151 to 0.611). The mean scores showed, however, no difference between 2D and 3D formats (>0.05). 3D images were regarded more informative than 2D images (P = 0.001) but probably more difficult to evaluate (P = 0.06). LIMITATIONS: Basal view of the nose was not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: 3D images seem better than 2D images for rating nasolabial aesthetics but raters should familiarize themselves with them prior to rating.