Identifying important prognostic factors and outcomes for autotransplantation of developing teeth: Clinicians' perspectives.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Variability in the outcome measures used to assess the success of tooth autotransplantation presents challenges for combining data to examine the success of the technique. Reaching agreement on the most important outcomes will enable routine procedural and follow-up data to be collected in a standardised way. In turn this will promote greater data synthesis to evaluate outcomes and examine which procedural techniques influence outcome. The aim of this study was to identify which prognostic factors and outcomes are most important to clinicians with experience in autotransplantation of developing teeth. METHODS: The Delphi method was used to build consensus on the most important prognostic factors and outcomes. Item identification involved a systematic literature review and review of current clinical datasets in use. A two-round Delphi questionnaire was undertaken with clinicians providing tooth autotransplantation, followed by a consensus meeting to finalise the most important items. RESULTS: Outcomes and prognostic factors were identified from the systematic review (82 studies and eight reviews), one guideline and three existing clinical datasets. Patient interviews and a clinician survey added a number of items that would not have been identified from the literature only. A total of 56 outcomes and 93 prognostic factors were included for rating in the Delphi questionnaire. The Delphi questionnaire was completed by 15 respondents in round one and 13 respondents in round two. The consensus meeting was attended by nine participants. The final items that were judged to be most important included 29 outcomes (25 clinical, three patient-reported and one service delivery) and 49 prognostic factors (18 patient characteristics, four presurgical, 17 surgical and 10 postsurgical). Clinical outcomes were consistently rated higher than patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcomes rated as the most important were transplant survival and reason for failure, outcomes relating to pulp health, different types of resorption and evidence of infection (suppuration). Important patient-reported outcomes were satisfaction with overall treatment experience, and outcome and quality of life related to function of the transplanted tooth. Procedural information rated as being the most important related to the donor tooth: stage of root development, method for surgical removal and storage and condition of the donor tooth root surface following removal.

UK dental students' ability and confidence in applying the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need and determining appropriate orthodontic referral.

INTRODUCTION: The aim was to assess the ability and confidence of UK undergraduate dental students in applying the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) and determining appropriate orthodontic referral. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey using a case-based online questionnaire. Fourth and fifth year undergraduate dental students were recruited from UK dental schools through their university and social media. Six cases were presented and participants were asked to provide an IOTN score and judgement about referral. Participants were asked about their confidence, experience and orthodontic teaching. RESULTS: Sixty-nine responses were returned. A quarter of participants reported having used IOTN before in a clinical setting. Clinical experience with IOTN influenced confidence. Familiarity with making orthodontic referrals was low and only one participant reported having made an orthodontic referral. Correct IOTN scores were given by 68% of participants for a large 14 mm overjet (5a) case, 43% of participants for an impacted canine (5i) case and 26% of participants for an impacted premolar (5i) case. Incorrect IOTN was most common in hypodontia cases with only 19% correctly identifying mild hypodontia (4h) and 28% identifying severe hypodontia (5h). For the majority of cases, incorrect answers about referral were due to confusion between specialist practitioner and orthodontic consultant pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Dental students' ability and confidence in correctly applying the IOTN Dental Health Component and selecting the appropriate referral pathway was inadequate. Responses suggest a lack of clinical experience in assessing patients, applying the IOTN and making referrals. The low response rate is disappointing and limits the scope for making recommendations.

Assessing dentist and dental student knowledge of and attitudes towards shared decision-making in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a partnership between healthcare professionals and patients when choosing care. AIM: To measure knowledge of, and attitudes to, SDM amongst undergraduate dental students and dentists in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional online questionnaire for 4th and 5th year dental students and dentists in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The questionnaire included attitudinal questions, knowledge of SDM relative to the evidence base and preferred approach to decision-making. The questionnaire identified perceived learning needs and preferred method for SDM teaching for dentists and dental students. Respondents were invited to participate via social media, mailing lists and CPD courses. RESULTS: Respondents included 266 undergraduates and 130 dentists. SDM was defined by the people involved, components of the discussion, approach to decision-making and expected outcome. Attitudes to SDM were generally positive although concerns were expressed about patients wanting professionals to make the decision, straying from the professionals' preferred option and compatibility with clinical guidelines. Respondents reported a preference for decision-making to involve patients, but this tended to be an informative rather than deliberative approach. Respondents were least sure of the evidence about the impact of SDM on adherence, choices and health outcomes, and the best approach to risk communication. Respondents from both groups reported an interest in learning more about SDM and its integration into clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of, and attitude to, SDM in UK dentists and dental undergraduates is generally positive; however, a demand for further SDM training was identified.

A study of the reporting of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in orthodontic research.

INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in research is an essential component of high-quality research. Patients and the public can identify which research topics are most relevant to them, contribute to study design, and interpretation and dissemination of findings. While inclusion of PPIE is widely adopted in medical research, awareness within the dental research community is more limited. AIM: To examine patient and public involvement and engagement in orthodontic research activity. DESIGN: Identification and appraisal of use of PPIE in orthodontic research reporting and funding applications using a systematic approach. METHODS: Three sources of information were examined: (1) research articles published between September 2018 and September 2019 in four major orthodontic journals. Articles were examined for reported PPIE; (2) common funding bodies for orthodontic research were assessed to establish whether PPIE was mandated (National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Chief Scientist Office (Scotland), Health and Care Research Wales, British Orthodontic Society Foundation, Royal College of Surgeons and CLEFT); and (3) publication guidance for authors in these journals was examined to identify whether reporting of PPIE was included. RESULTS: Of the 363 research articles, 2 (0.6%) mention patient/public involvement. None of the 363 research articles mention patient/public engagement. Of nine funding bodies, 2 (22%) request evidence of patient/public involvement as a condition of receiving funding with one (11%) expecting evidence of public engagement to be provided as a condition of receiving funding. None of the four major orthodontic journals include patient/public involvement and/or engagement in their guidance for authors. CONCLUSION: There is currently: (1) a notable lack of reporting of PPIE in orthodontic research; (2) variability in the requirements of funding bodies for researchers to include PPIE in funding applications and throughout the research process; and (3) no stipulation in journals' instructions for authors.

Knowledge of, and attitudes to, shared decision-making in orthodontics in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To establish UK orthodontic treatment providers' knowledge of, and attitudes to, shared decision-making (SDM). SDM involves patients as equal partners in decisions about treatment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Online survey across the UK. POPULATION: Dentists and orthodontists providing orthodontic treatment in the UK. METHODS: Potential participants were contacted through the British Orthodontic Society mailing lists. An online survey was developed to examine knowledge of, and attitudes to, SDM using a combination of evidence-based statements and free text boxes. Questions regarding previous training in SDM and preferences for further training were also included. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 210 respondents, yielding an approximate response rate of 15%. Respondents were mainly consultants (34%) and specialist orthodontists (42%). SDM was well described in terms of the people involved in this process, how it is approached, the components and topics of discussion, and the overall purpose of SDM. Generally, there was consistency in attitudinal responses, with the largest variance in responses to questions about the professional-patient partnership, the interface between SDM and clinical guidelines, and accepting a decision that is discordant with the professional's opinion. Fifty-one respondents reported having some previous teaching/training in SDM, with the majority (87%) indicating that they would like more training. CONCLUSION: Clinicians providing orthodontic treatment in the UK have a good understanding of the meaning of shared decision-making. Concerns raised about using SDM and knowledge gaps suggest there is value in providing SDM training for the orthodontic team and that orthodontic providers would welcome it.

Allergy to acrylate in composite in an orthodontic patient: a case report.

Acrylate allergies have been reported in dental professionals as a result of repeat exposure to various acrylate monomers and in dental patients with removable prostheses or longstanding composite restorations. To date, there is only one report of an allergic reaction in a young patient from small volumes of resin-based orthodontic adhesive. This case report demonstrates a recent case of gingival inflammation and lip oedema attributed to an acrylate allergy arising from the composite adhesive used with fixed appliances. The impact on orthodontic treatment is reported and the wider implications for dentistry are discussed.

Limitations of a method used for adolescent assessment of smile aesthetics.

AIMS: To establish whether adolescent orthodontic patients with hypodontia have a preference between the aesthetic outcomes of two treatment strategies for lateral incisor agenesis. MATERIALS/METHODS: Standardized photographs of pre-orthodontic patients with missing lateral incisors were manipulated to produce images that represented space opening and tooth replacement in the lateral incisor space and space closure with canine substitution into the lateral incisor space. Adolescent orthodontic patients with hypodontia were recruited to assess the aesthetics of the images. A control group of subjects without tooth agenesis was recruited. Each examiner undertook two tests to assess the smile aesthetics of the images: (1) rating attractiveness using visual analogue scale (VAS) and (2) choice of preference between pairs of images. RESULTS: Difficulties experienced with image manipulation and poor intra-examiner reliability of the VAS make interpretation of the results challenging. Care should be taken if findings are used to aid clinical decisions, as the validity of the main findings is questionable. Results suggest that although adolescents perceive a difference in the aesthetic result of space opening and space closure for missing lateral incisors, the impact on the smile attractiveness is not clinically significant. When forced to choose between the aesthetics of space opening or space closure, the majority of examiners chose space opening with tooth replacement. No difference was found in smile ratings or preferences between adolescents with hypodontia and those with no missing teeth. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The methods used in this study may not be reliable for adolescent assessment of aesthetics.

The effect of canine characteristics and symmetry on perceived smile attractiveness when canine teeth are substituted for lateral incisors.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of canine tooth characteristics and symmetry on perceived smile attractiveness when maxillary canine teeth are substituted for missing lateral incisors. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Non-clinical study undertaken from Leeds Dental Institute, UK. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A composite full-face image of a smiling female was used to display various dentitions; a control image with an 'ideal' smile, plus six further images substituting the maxillary lateral incisors with canine teeth either unilaterally or bilaterally with varying size, shape, colour and gingival margin level. The seven images were shown to orthodontists (n = 30), dentists (n = 30) and lay people (n = 30) who were asked to rate smile attractiveness using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Dental professionals rated smiles with canine substitution for lateral incisor agenesis to be significantly less attractive than an ideal smile unless the substituted canine teeth approximated the lateral incisor in terms of size, shape, colour and gingival margin. Lay people did not find smiles where canine teeth were substituted for lateral incisors significantly more or less attractive than an ideal smile regardless of the canine tooth characteristics. Dental professionals were significantly more perceptive than lay people to the deviation from ideal smile aesthetics due to canine substitution. Smiles with unilateral canine substitution were not found to be significantly less attractive than bilateral canine substitution by all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Canine characteristics and observer status will affect how canine substitution for lateral incisor agenesis is viewed in terms of aesthetic outcome.

Class II Division 1: An Evidence- Based Review of Management and Treatment Timing in the Growing Patient.

Class II division 1 malocclusion is common and various methods have been suggested for successful treatment in the growing patient. A number of recent high-quality studies have been undertaken to assess the efficacy of these treatments. We aim to outline the existing best evidence that supports current practice, with a review of the effect of treatment timing on outcome. This will provide a sound evidence-base for General Dental Practitioners for assessing, advising and referring young patients for treatment. CPD/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: General Dental Practitioners should understand the management options and optimal time for treating growing patients with a Class II division 1 malocclusion.

Antibiotics and toothache: a social media review.

OBJECTIVES: Antibiotics are inappropriate for the treatment of toothache, yet many seek them. Social media allows users to express their opinions, share experiences and offer support. This study used social media to investigate the public's experiences of, and attitudes towards, antibiotics for toothache. METHODS: A systematic search of posts on Facebook and Twitter was undertaken. Eligibility criteria were applied to select relevant social media posts for thematic analysis of word content. An inductive descriptive coding system was developed from the data and exemplary quotes were identified to illustrate the themes and subthemes identified. Key findings Searches identified 174 posts, of which 144 were selected for analysis. Five themes were identified: experience and expectations, self-care and professional treatment, access to dental care, quality of life and coping strategies. The belief that antibiotics are an appropriate treatment for a toothache was widespread. Antibiotic-seeking behaviour was related to access to professional dental care, including avoiding dental appointments due to dental anxiety and the perceived affordability of dentistry. A range of strategies to cope with the severe impact toothache was having on people's quality of life were identified, from prayer to antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Social media is used extensively to seek antibiotics, avoid dental treatment and provide support to people with toothache. A general belief that antibiotics are an appropriate and necessary treatment for toothache exists. This improved understanding about the factors driving antibiotic-seeking behaviour provides new targets for the development of approaches to tackling antibiotic resistance, by reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in dental clinics and beyond.

Is social media the way to empower patients to share their experiences of dental care?

BACKGROUND: Social media present opportunities to understand patient experience and information needs. In this study, the authors use hypodontia as an example to explore social media use by dental patients and how this provides for understanding patient experience. METHODS: The cross-sectional survey design involved systematic search of 6 social media online environments with hypodontia-related terms. The authors categorized records by using a coding system for user, type and theme of post, and target audience. The authors used a thematic framework approach to analyze qualitatively the word content of posts from people affected by hypodontia (nondentists). RESULTS: The authors searched and identified 571 records and included 467 of them in their study. The authors analyzed the content of records from people affected by hypodontia (n = 176). Themes emerged about the experience of untreated hypodontia, treatment experience and outcomes, and decision making. Content analysis provided evidence about peer-to-peer communication, areas of information need, and desire for peer support. CONCLUSIONS: Social media communities have responded to the need for information exchange and peer support by the public. Analysis of communications helped identify a need for dissemination of understandable information to patients and improved dentist awareness of patient needs. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should reassess understanding and information needs actively throughout treatment and identify support needs. Clinicians should refer patients to quality information sources and peer support groups.

A multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: Part 2: Pain perception.

OBJECTIVE: To compare pain experience between self-ligating and conventional preadjusted edgewise appliance systems with a two-arm parallel trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in three hospital orthodontic departments. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive treatment with either a self-ligating (3M SmartClip™) or conventional (3M Victory™) bracket system with stratification for operator and center. Standardized protocol was followed for bracket bonding procedure and archwire sequence. Subject pain was recorded using a Verbal Rating Scale to assess discomfort felt on the teeth and soft tissues at the time of the appointment and 1, 3, and 5 days after each archwire change up to the working archwire. Multilevel modeling was used to analyze the data by blinded assessors. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight subjects (mean age 14 years 11 months) were enrolled in the study, of which 135 subjects (97.8%) completed the study and 113 (82%) returned the required data regarding pain/discomfort. Perceived pain was statistically higher with the SmartClip™ system compared to the Victory™ system, but this difference was not deemed to be clinically significant. Discomfort was greatest after placement of the initial 0.014-inch nickel-titanium archwire, compared with subsequent wires, and was greatest on day 1, less on day 3, and much less on day 5 after each archwire change. Age and gender did not affect the level of discomfort experienced by subjects undergoing fixed appliance treatment. CONCLUSION: No clinically significant difference in pain experience was found between patients treated with a self-ligating bracket system compared to those treated with a conventional ligation system.

A multi-center randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: Part 1: Treatment efficiency.

OBJECTIVE: To use a two-arm parallel trial to compare treatment efficiency between a self-ligating and a conventional preadjusted edgewise appliance system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in three hospital orthodontic departments. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive treatment with either a self-ligating (3M SmartClip) or conventional (3M Victory) preadjusted edgewise appliance bracket system using a computer-generated random sequence concealed in opaque envelopes, with stratification for operator and center. Two operators followed a standardized protocol regarding bracket bonding procedure and archwire sequence. Efficiency of each ligation system was assessed by comparing the duration of treatment (months), total number of appointments (scheduled and emergency visits), and number of bracket bond failures. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight subjects (mean age 14 years 11 months) were enrolled in the study, of which 135 subjects (97.8%) completed treatment. The mean treatment time and number of visits were 25.12 months and 19.97 visits in the SmartClip group and 25.80 months and 20.37 visits in the Victory group. The overall bond failure rate was 6.6% for the SmartClip and 7.2% for Victory, with a similar debond distribution between the two appliances. No significant differences were found between the bracket systems in any of the outcome measures. No serious harm was observed from either bracket system. CONCLUSIONS: There was no clinically significant difference in treatment efficiency between treatment with a self-ligating bracket system and a conventional ligation system.