Can artificial intelligence models serve as patient information consultants in orthodontics?

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the accuracy, reliability, quality, and readability of responses generated by ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot in relation to orthodontic clear aligners. METHODS: Frequently asked questions by patients/laypersons about clear aligners on websites were identified using the Google search tool and these questions were posed to ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot AI models. Responses were assessed using a five-point Likert scale for accuracy, the modified DISCERN scale for reliability, the Global Quality Scale (GQS) for quality, and the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) for readability. RESULTS: ChatGPT-4 responses had the highest mean Likert score (4.5 ± 0.61), followed by Copilot (4.35 ± 0.81), ChatGPT-3.5 (4.15 ± 0.75) and Gemini (4.1 ± 0.72). The difference between the Likert scores of the chatbot models was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Copilot had a significantly higher modified DISCERN and GQS score compared to both Gemini, ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). Gemini's modified DISCERN and GQS score was statistically higher than ChatGPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). Gemini also had a significantly higher FRES compared to both ChatGPT-4, Copilot and ChatGPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). The mean FRES was 38.39 ± 11.56 for ChatGPT-3.5, 43.88 ± 10.13 for ChatGPT-4 and 41.72 ± 10.74 for Copilot, indicating that the responses were difficult to read according to the reading level. The mean FRES for Gemini is 54.12 ± 10.27, indicating that Gemini's responses are more readable than other chatbots. CONCLUSIONS: All chatbot models provided generally accurate, moderate reliable and moderate to good quality answers to questions about the clear aligners. Furthermore, the readability of the responses was difficult. ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot have significant potential as patient information tools in orthodontics, however, to be fully effective they need to be supplemented with more evidence-based information and improved readability.

The quality of Web-based orthodontic information: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Patients seeking health information on the Internet is commonplace. This scoping review aimed to collate and synthesize the evidence regarding the quality of Web-based orthodontic information. METHODS: A systematic search and independent screening process was conducted by 2 independent reviewers across 4 databases. The review was conducted in alignment with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. RESULTS: Of 661 records identified, 30 publications satisfied the inclusion criteria. Reviewed studies included those related to the information contained within Web sites regarding dental and orthodontist practices, orthodontic interventions, appliances and auxiliaries, orthodontic conditions commonly requiring orthodontic therapy, issues related to patient experience, and advice during orthodontic treatment. A total of 5 quality of information (QOI) instruments and 3 readability tools were employed, with the University of Oxford, United Kingdom (DISCERN) instrument and the Flesch Reading Ease Score tool being the most frequently used. Most studies determined that the QOI contained within evaluated Web sites was poor and provided suboptimal information related to treatment risks and Web site reliability. Most studies indicated that the information was more difficult to read than recommended by guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The QOI of orthodontic information available on Web sites was low to moderate, with the readability of content at a level that was considered challenging for many readers to understand. A recommendation for greater involvement of the dental and orthodontic specialty in Web site development was commonplace. Research is required for the development of validated tools that can determine the accuracy of information in addition to Web site reliability.

Still to ARRIVE at adequate reporting of orthodontic studies involving animal models.

BACKGROUND: The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines were introduced to improve the reporting of animal studies. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting adherence of orthodontic speciality animal studies in relation to ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. Associations between the reporting and study characteristics were explored. MATERIALS AND METHOD: An electronic database search was undertaken using Medline via PubMed (www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) to identify studies meeting the eligibility criteria published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions for the responses to each checklist item were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per ARRIVE item were calculated. A sum score was calculated by adding the responses (0 = not reported, 1 = inadequate reporting, 2 = adequate reporting) per item and sub-questions. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and study characteristics (year of publication, continent of authorship, type of centre, and number of authors) was performed. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-four studies were analysed. Variability in the adequate reporting of the ARRIVE 2.0 guideline items was evident. In particular, in 32% of studies, there was a lack of reporting of the priori sample size calculation. Overall, the mean reporting score for the sample was 57.9 (SD 6.7 and range 34-74). There were no associations between score and study characteristics except for a weak association for year of publication with a small improvement over time (each additional year). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of animal studies relevant to the speciality of orthodontics is sub-optimal in relation to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. There was a tendency for the non-reporting of items pertaining to study sample size, eligibility, methods to reduce bias and interpretation/scientific implications. Greater awareness and reporting adherence to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines are required to reduce research waste involving animal models.

Patient safety in orthodontic care: a scoping literature review with proposal for terminology and future research agenda.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about patient safety in orthodontics is scarce. Lack of standardisation and a common terminology hinders research and limits our understanding of the discipline. This study aims to 1) summarise current knowledge about patient safety incidents (PSI) in orthodontic care by conducting a systematic literature search, 2) propose a new standardisation of PSI terminology and 3) propose a future research agenda on patient safety in the field of orthodontics. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the main online sources of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and OpenGrey from their inception to 1 July 2023. Inclusion criteria were based on the World Health Organization´s (WHO) research cycle on patient safety. Studies providing information about the cycle's steps related to orthodontics were included. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two of the authors. RESULTS: A total of 3,923 articles were retrieved. After review of titles and abstracts, 41 articles were selected for full-text review and 25 articles were eligible for inclusion. Seven provided information on the WHO's research cycle step 1 ("measuring harm"), twenty-one on "understanding causes" (step 2) and twelve on "identifying solutions" (step 3). No study provided information on Steps 4 and 5 ("evaluating impact" or "translating evidence into safer care"). CONCLUSION: Current evidence on patient safety in orthodontics is scarce due to a lack of standardised reporting and probably also under-reporting of PSIs. Current literature on orthodontic patient safety deals primarily with "measuring harms" and "understanding causes of patient safety", whereas less attention has been devoted to initiatives "identifying solutions", "evaluating impact" and "translating evidence into safer care". The present project holds a proposal for a new categorisation, terminology and future research agenda that may serve as a framework to support future research and clinical initiatives to improve patient safety in orthodontic care. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42022371982).

Strategic use of obturator prostheses for the rehabilitation of oral cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the current pandemic scenario, maxillofacial rehabilitation specialists involved with supportive care in cancer must transform its practice to cope with COVID-19 and improve protocols that could quickly return the oral function of complex cancer patients who cannot wait for surgical complex rehabilitation. This includes the role of the maxillofacial prosthodontist for the rehabilitation of surgically treated patients with maxillary cancers by the means of filling obturator prostheses that are considered an optimal scientific-based strategy to reduce hospital stay with excellent pain control, oral function (speech, swallowing, mastication, and facial esthetics), psychologic and quality of life outcomes for the patients following intraoral cancer resection. Therefore, the aim of this commentary was to bring new lights to the strategic use of obturator prostheses for the rehabilitation of oral cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as to present a protocol for managing such cases.

Profound approach to check legitimacy of an old technique used to gauge palatal rugae.

AIMS: The present study aimed at assessing two fixed points of reference from where the mesial and distal point of all rugae can be measured so that the exact movement of particular rugae in any direction can be evaluated and assessing the changes in the palatal rugae after orthodontic treatment. METHODS: A longitudinal study conducted among a sample of 20 (8 male and 12 female) adult patients. Pre- and post-orthodontic treatment casts of patients were obtained from the Department of Orthodontics College of Dentistry Jazan University. Antero-posterior linear distances (Technique I) between medial and lateral points of primary, secondary and tertiary rugae were measured. Also, the transverse linear distance (Technique II) between medial and lateral points of right and left rugae were measured. Technique III involved marking two fixed points and using these two points a third point is located on the medial or lateral end of rugae of right and left side in pre and post-treatment orthodontic casts. The independent sample t-test was employed to compare gender. Difference between the pre- and post-treatment mean values were checked by the paired t-test. RESULTS: Technique III successfully showed the statistically significant difference (P ≤ 0.05, 95% CI) in the overall pre and post-treatment values on the patients' cast (N = 20) which was not observed with a technique I and technique II. CONCLUSION: The triangle created by the three reference points in the technique III was able to identify the changes in the palatine rugae more precisely than the technique I and Technique II.

Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated and compared the completeness of reporting of abstracts of orthodontics systematic reviews before and after the publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Abstracts Checklist (PRISMA-A). METHODS: Abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics published in PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases before March 23, 2018, that met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, were evaluated using the 12 items of PRISMA-A, scoring each item from 0 to 2. Abstracts were classified into 2 groups: before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist. Three calibrated evaluators (intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa > 0.8) assessed the scores for compliance with the checklist. The number of authors, country of affiliation of the first author, performance of meta-analysis, and topic of the article were recorded. A regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between abstract characteristics and the PRISMA-A scores. RESULTS: Of 1034 abstracts evaluated, 389 were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-A score was 53.39 (95% CI, 51.83-54.96). The overall score for studies published after the publication of the checklist was significantly higher than for studies published before (P ≤ 0.0001). The components returning significantly higher scores after publication of PRISMA-A were title (P = 0.024), information from databases (P = 0.026), risk of bias (P ≤ 0.0001), included studies (P ≤ 0.0001), synthesis of results (P ≤ 0.0001), interpretation of results (P = 0.035), financing and conflict of interest (P ≤ 0.0001), and registration (P ≤ 0.0001). These results showed the positive effect of PRISMA-A had on the quality of reporting of orthodontics systematic reviews. Nevertheless, the poor adherence revealed that there is still need for improvement in the quality of abstract reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of abstracts of orthodontic systematic reviews and meta-analyses increased after the introduction of PRISMA-A.

Characteristics of an excellent orthodontic residency program.

INTRODUCTION: Although unquantifiable features, such as faculty passion and dedication to teaching, play a vital role in defining the quality of residency education, determinable features that are fundamental to the definition of a "top tier" orthodontic residency program also exist. The objective of this study was to identify those features. METHODS: A survey with 32 items was developed and validated to assess the features of an excellent orthodontic program based on the following 3 major domains: faculty, education, and resident/graduate student/alumni. The survey was sent to 62 orthodontic residency programs in the United States. RESULTS: Thirty-nine programs (63%) completed the survey. Recurring attributes that were identified in what constitutes an excellent program included the following: an adequate number of full-time clinical orthodontic faculty, with each member providing 1 day per week clinic coverage. The average of all respondents was 4, and the range was 1-6; a healthy mix of part-time faculty members with ≥1 full-time faculty member who monitors every clinical session; 80% full-time faculty members who are American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) certified; a craniofacial faculty member; 4 residents/graduate students per each faculty member who covers a clinical session; resident/graduate student exposure to a wide range of treatment modalities and appliances; approximately 70 new case starts per resident/graduate student (50%-60% of patients who are started are debonded by the starting resident/graduate student); patients with craniofacial anomalies and orthognathic surgery patients should be started by each resident/graduate student; 1.5 operatory chairs per resident or graduate student; 1 dental assistant per 4 residents/graduate students; 1 laboratory person; 1 receptionist/secretary per 4 residents; 100% of residents/graduate students successfully completing ABO written examination upon graduation; 60% of residents/graduate students obtaining ABO certification within 5 years of graduation; 50% of residents/graduate students presenting at national meetings would be ideal; and 50% of living alumni contributing financially to the department during the past 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the responses from the majority of the US orthodontic residency programs, this study has identified certain features that educators feel are ideal for an excellent orthodontic program.

Obstructive sleep apnea and orthodontics: An American Association of Orthodontists White Paper.

The Board of Trustees of the American Association of Orthodontists asked a panel of medical and dental experts in sleep medicine and dental sleep medicine to create a document designed to offer guidance to practicing orthodontists on the suggested role of the specialty of orthodontics in the management of obstructive sleep apnea. This White Paper presents a summary of the Task Force's findings and recommendations.

Accuracy of Dental Monitoring 3D digital dental models using photograph and video mode.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to test the accuracy of the 3-dimensional (3D) digital dental models generated by the Dental Monitoring (DM) smartphone application in both photograph and video modes over successive DM examinations in comparison with 3D digital dental models generated by the iTero Element intraoral scanner. METHODS: Ten typodonts with setups of class I malocclusion and comparable severity of anterior crowding were used in the study. iTero Element scans along with DM examination in photograph and video modes were performed before tooth movement and after each set of 10 Invisalign aligners for each typodont. Stereolithography (STL) files generated from the DM examinations in photograph and video modes were superimposed with the STL files from the iTero scans using GOM Inspect software to determine the accuracy of both photograph and video modes of DM technology. RESULTS: No clinically significant differences, according to the American Board of Orthodontics-determined standards, were found. Mean global deviations for the maxillary arch ranged from 0.00149 to 0.02756 mm in photograph mode and from 0.0148 to 0.0256 mm in video mode. Mean global deviations for the mandibular arch ranged from 0.0164 to 0.0275 mm in photograph mode and from 0.0150 to 0.0264 mm in video mode. Statistically significant differences were found between the 3D models generated by the iTero and the DM application in photograph and video modes over successive DM examinations. CONCLUSIONS: 3D digital dental models generated by the DM smartphone application in photograph and video modes are accurate enough to be used for clinical applications.

Statistical testing against baseline in orthodontic research: a meta-epidemiologic study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of within-group comparisons from baseline to follow-up in published orthodontic articles and to identify potential associations between this statistical problem and a number of study characteristics. MATERIALS/METHOD: The most recent 24 issues of four leading orthodontic journals with highest impact factor (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; AJODO, European Journal of Orthodontics; EJO, Angle Orthodontist; ANGLE, Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research; OCR) were electronically searched until December 31st 2017. The proportion of articles using comparisons against baseline and interpretation of findings according to within-group comparisons were recorded. The association of this practice with journal, year of publication, study design, continent of authorship, number of centres and researchers, statistical significance of results, and statistical analysis was tested. Univariable and multivariable modified Poisson regression were used to identify significant predictors. RESULTS: Overall, 339 articles were eligible for inclusion with the majority published in ANGLE (n = 157, 46%), followed by AJODO (n = 75, 22%), and EJO (n = 75, 22%). A total of 60 studies (18%) presented interpretation of their findings based on within-group comparisons against baseline in isolation. Statistical significance of the primary outcome was a very strong predictor of the prevalence of this flawed approach (RR: 2.33, 95% CIs: 1.22, 4.43; P = 0.01). LIMITATIONS: The effect of time since publication was not addressed. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Statistical testing and interpretation within groups is prevalent in orthodontic research. Endorsement of accurate conduct and reporting of statistical analyses and interpretation of research findings is important in order to promote optimal inferences to support clinical decision-making.

The reporting of blinding in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: where do we stand?

Objective: To analyse in 10 orthodontic journals how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed 'single-', 'double-', 'triple-', or 'outcome assessors blinding' and to evaluate, from the number of RCTs that did not conduct blinding, how many could actually have achieved it. Material and methods: Randomized controlled trials published in 10 orthodontic journals between 1 September 2012 and 28 February 2018 were included. A search was performed in PubMed and conducted for publication type 'randomized controlled trial' for each journal. Two reviewers independently analysed each RCT and registered that blinding was performed and included which specific type. It was also evaluated whether misclassifications of blinding items occurred and whether it was possible to achieve blinding among the RCTs that did not perform blinding. Results: After applying the inclusion criteria, 203 RCTs were assessed, and 61.6 per cent of them had used blinding, with the main type being 'outcome assessors blinding' (40.4%) followed by 'single-blinding' (15.3%), 'double-blinding' (2.5%), and 'triple-blinding' (3.4%). In 38.4 per cent of the trials, no blinding was performed; however, 79.4 per cent of them could have achieved blinding. Fifteen RCTs (7.3%) misclassified the blinding in relation to single-, double-, or triple-blinding. Journals followed the CONSORT (AJODO, EJO, JO, OCR) published together significantly more RCTs that performed blinding than journals not following the CONSORT. Conclusions: Blinding of outcome assessors was the most frequent type, as orthodontic trials are often of intervention design and thereby difficult to mask for patients and trial staff. The misclassifications of blinding items may indicate suboptimal knowledge among researchers and peer-reviewers regarding the definitions for diverse blinding types.

[The satisfaction with rendering medical services of orthodontic profile to children of junior school age].

The article considers the results of complex medical sociological study including questionnaire survey of schoolchildren of junior age and their parents concerning issues of satisfaction with stomatological services. The data is presented concerning subjective opinions about quality and accessibility of stomatological care of orthodontic profile. The causes of dissatisfaction are established and ranged. The criteria of predominant visits to medical organizations of state and private forms of property. The study established demographic and financial characteristics of families, professional characteristics of parents, their subjective opinions about particular aspects of quality of life. The level of sanitary hygienic knowledge and medical activity, including issues of prevention of stomatological diseases and dental maxillary anomalies in children aged 6-11 years was determined. The summary social portrait of family fostering child-patient of children stomatological polyclinic was composed.

American Board of Orthodontics: Time for change.

The American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) works to certify orthodontists in a fair, reliable, and valid manner. The process must examine an orthodontist's knowledge, abilities, and critical thinking skills to ensure that each certified orthodontist has the expertise to provide the highest level of patient care. Many medical specialty boards and 4 American Dental Association specialty boards use scenario-based testing for board certification. Changing to a scenario-based clinical examination will allow the ABO to test more orthodontists. The new process will not result in an easier examination; standards will not be lowered. It will offer an improved testing method that will be fair, valid, and reliable for the specialty of orthodontics while increasing accessibility and complementing residency curricula. The ABO's written examination will remain as it is.

Clinical considerations and potential liability associated with the use of ionizing radiation in orthodontics.

Ionizing radiation is a known carcinogen. Its damaging effects can be deterministic or stochastic. Deterministic effects occur only after radiation exposure thresholds are reached, but stochastic effects are random, and there is no known threshold below which harmful effects will not occur. Therefore, the use of ionizing radiation in orthodontic treatment should bring a benefit to the patient that outweighs the risks. No legally binding statutes, rules, or regulations provide explicit radiographic prescription protocols for orthodontic practice. The objective of this article was to discuss guidelines and risk management strategies for appropriate and defensible use of ionizing radiation in orthodontics. Guidelines are discussed for radiographic acquisition at different points along the orthodontic treatment timeline. In addition, risk management strategies and best practices are presented regarding adequate and defensible radiographic interpretation. These guidelines are not rigid and do not establish standards of care; they should be modified as necessary for each patient and each clinical encounter.

Hawthorne effect reporting in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: truth or myth? Blessing or curse?

Objective: To investigate in 10 orthodontic journals how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) considered the Hawthorne effect, and if considered, to determine whether it was related to the patients or the therapists involved in the trial and, finally, to discuss the Hawthorne effect in an educational way. Materials and methods: A search was performed on the Medline database, via PubMed, for publication type 'randomized controlled trial' published for each journal between 1 August 2007 and 31 July 2017. The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, Australian Orthodontic Journal, Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics, Korean Journal of Orthodontics, Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research and Progress in Orthodontics were assessed. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and identified whether the Hawthorne effect was considered or discussed in the articles and whether the Hawthorne effect was related to the behaviour of the patients, the therapists, or both. Results: The initial search generated 502 possible trials. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 290 RCTs were included and assessed. The Hawthorne effect was considered or discussed in 10 of 290 RCTs (3.4%), and all were related to the patients' and none to the therapists' behaviour. Conclusions: The Hawthorne effect reported in orthodontic RCTs was suboptimal. The researchers' lack of knowledge about this phenomenon is evident, despite evidence that the Hawthorne effect may cause over-optimistic results or false-positive bias.

Intention to treat (ITT) analysis as reported in orthodontic randomized controlled trials-evaluations of methodology and recommendations for the accurate use of ITT analysis and handling dropouts.

Objective: To systematically evaluate in five orthodontic journals how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) use intention to treat (ITT) analysis and to assess the methodological quality of the ITT analysis, and finally, to demonstrate in an academic way how outcomes can be affected when not implementing the ITT analysis. Material and methods: A search of the database, Medline, was performed via PubMed for publication type 'randomized controlled trial' published for each journal between 1 January 2013 and 30 April 2017. The five orthodontic journals assessed were the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontics, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics, and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research. Two independent reviewers assessed each RCT to determine whether the trial reported an ITT or not or if a per-protocol analysis was accomplished. Results: The initial search generated 137 possible trials. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 90 RCTs were included and assessed. Seventeen out of 90 RCTs (18.9%) either reported an ITT analysis in the text and/or supported the ITT by flow diagrams or tables. However, six RCTs applied and reported the ITT analysis correctly, while the majority performed a per-protocol analysis instead. Conclusions: Nearly all the trials that applied the ITT analysis incorrectly analysed the results using a per-protocol analysis, and thus, overestimating the results and/or having a reduced sample size which then could produce a diminished statistical power.

The possibility of modification and improvement of dental services in Poland for children and adolescents with special emphasis on orthodontic service.

AIM: World Dental Federation reveals that dental caries is one of the most common diseases in the world, and as much as 90% of the population is facing oral cavity problems. About 28% of teenagers aged 10 and 15 absolutely needs orthodontic treatment and about another third of this age group represents very serious cases. The aim of this study is to verify the authorial model which modifies and facilitates the system of dental services in Poland with a special emphasis on orthodontic service. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The research was carried out with the method of diagnostic survey through a survey questionnaire. For this study, 1159 people were questioned for the research. In order to check the reliance between the variables Pearson chi-square test and the test of the Highest Reliability were used. Average market prices and the "prices expected" by the Greater Poland Voivodship Department of National Healthcare System were used to price dental services. RESULTS: The research revealed that the highest percentage of people who used only private dental services is between 19 and 64 years of age and the lowest percentage is represented by the elderly, i.e. subjects over 65 years of age. As for the dental services offered by the National Health Fund, the highest percentage of patients are children and adolescents under 18 and the lowest percentage of patients is represented by people in the working age. The tendency towards private healthcare is in direct proportion to parents' increase in the level of education. The main reason why parents take their children to a private dentist is the long waiting time for the visit offered by the National Health Fund as well as better materials and equipment offered by private dentists. The costs connected with extending the basket of guaranteed services for children and youngsters are combined with the increase in National Health Fund expenditure reaching EUR 7,014,151. The lack of refunding dental services for patients aged 19-64 will generate savings reaching about EUR 34,756,765. CONCLUSION: The reduction of public funds allocated for dental treatment of patients aged 19-64 will generate savings which will satisfy the needs connected with the increase in the range of refunded orthodontic treatment with the use of orthodontic permanent braces for patients under 18 years of age. The solution suggested will only slightly affect people in the working age as they reveal a strong tendency for treatment financed with their private funds.

Evidence-based practice and the evidence pyramid: A 21st century orthodontic odyssey.

Organized evidence-based practice is said to have started in the medical field in the late 20th century. Its principles and usage eventually spread to other health sciences, including orthodontics. Although the conceptual foundations and basic tenets of evidence-based orthodontics are based on the classical approach of testing medical interventions, differences unravel as we encounter the ground realities in orthodontics, which are unique due to the length, complexity, and diversity involved in orthodontic treatment and research. How has this led to the evolution of evidence-based orthodontics and changes in its applications? Is it being translated to better clinical answers, treatment strategies, patient satisfaction, and information for orthodontists? What more needs to be done, considering the rapidly changing orthodontic scenario? This article aims to explore these questions to evaluate how evidence-based orthodontics has played itself out so far, so that it can continue to grow strong and stand up to the challenges of 21st century orthodontics.

Expert panels as a reference standard in orthodontic research: An assessment of published methods and reporting.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the expert panel methodology applied in orthodontics and its reporting quality. Additionally, the relationship between the reporting quality and a range of variables was explored. METHODS: PubMed was searched for orthodontic studies in which the final diagnosis or assessment was made by 2 or more experts published up to March 16, 2015. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using an established modified checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the total score was assessed using univariable linear regression. RESULTS: We identified 237 studies with a mean score of 9.97 (SD, 1.12) out of a maximum of 15. Critical information about panel methodology was missing in all studies. The panel composition differed substantially across studies, ranging from 2 to 646 panel members, with large variations in the expertise represented. Only 17 studies (7.2%) reported sample size calculations to justify the panel size. Panel members were partly blinded in 65 (27.4%) studies. Most studies failed to report which statistic was used to compute intrarater (65.8%) and interrater (66.2%) agreements. Journal type (nonorthodontic: ß, 0.23; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.54 compared with orthodontic), publication year (ß, 0; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02 for each additional year), number of authors (1-3: ß, 0.30; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.74 compared with at least 6; 4-5: ß, 0.18; 95% CI, -0.29 to 0.33 compared with at least 6), and number of centers involved (single: ß, 0.20; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.54 compared with multicenter) were not significant predictors of improved reporting. Studies published in Asia and Australia had significantly lower scores compared with those published in Europe (ß, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.92 to -0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Formal guidelines on methodology and reporting of studies involving expert panels are required.