Timing of Primary Surgery for Cleft Palate.

BACKGROUND: Among infants with isolated cleft palate, whether primary surgery at 6 months of age is more beneficial than surgery at 12 months of age with respect to speech outcomes, hearing outcomes, dentofacial development, and safety is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned infants with nonsyndromic isolated cleft palate, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo standardized primary surgery at 6 months of age (6-month group) or at 12 months of age (12-month group) for closure of the cleft. Standardized assessments of quality-checked video and audio recordings at 1, 3, and 5 years of age were performed independently by speech and language therapists who were unaware of the trial-group assignments. The primary outcome was velopharyngeal insufficiency at 5 years of age, defined as a velopharyngeal composite summary score of at least 4 (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater severity). Secondary outcomes included speech development, postoperative complications, hearing sensitivity, dentofacial development, and growth. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 558 infants at 23 centers across Europe and South America to undergo surgery at 6 months of age (281 infants) or at 12 months of age (277 infants). Speech recordings from 235 infants (83.6%) in the 6-month group and 226 (81.6%) in the 12-month group were analyzable. Insufficient velopharyngeal function at 5 years of age was observed in 21 of 235 infants (8.9%) in the 6-month group as compared with 34 of 226 (15.0%) in the 12-month group (risk ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.99; P = 0.04). Postoperative complications were infrequent and similar in the 6-month and 12-month groups. Four serious adverse events were reported (three in the 6-month group and one in the 12-month group) and had resolved at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Medically fit infants who underwent primary surgery for isolated cleft palate in adequately resourced settings at 6 months of age were less likely to have velopharyngeal insufficiency at the age of 5 years than those who had surgery at 12 months of age. (Funded by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; TOPS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00993551.).

Optical effects of graphene addition on adhesives for orthodontic lingual retainers.

The objective of this study was to determine the effects on the colour of adding increasing concentrations of graphene to orthodontic fixed retainer adhesives and to evaluate changes in optical transmission during light curing and the resultant degree of conversion. Two different types of adhesives commonly used for fixed retainers were investigated: A packable composite (Transbond) and a flowable composite (Transbond Supreme). Graphene was added to the adhesives in three different concentrations (0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 wt%). Adhesives without graphene addition were set as control groups. A Minolta colourimeter was used to measure the colour and translucency parameters. Irradiance transmitted during curing was quantified using MARC Light Collector. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy was used to record degree of conversion. Data were statistically analysed with the Student's t-test and one-way ANOVA with Tukey's tests (α = 0.05). The findings showed that incorporating graphene darkened the adhesive colour significantly and reduced translucency. As the graphene concentration reached 0.1 wt%, samples became opaque; yet, no adverse effect on degree of conversion was observed. The addition of graphene reduces optical transmission of lingual retainer adhesives; the effect increases with graphene concentration.

Contemporary Twin Block appliance wear protocols: A survey of UK orthodontists.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to determine contemporary trends in the use of the Twin Block appliance among UK orthodontists, including the wear time currently prescribed. In addition, the study explored if there had been any change in wear time prescribed, considering recent research evidence proposing part-time wear. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, online survey. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the British Orthodontic Society (BOS). METHODS: The questionnaire was emailed to all BOS members in November 2021 and hosted on the QualtricsXM platform. The questionnaire was piloted for content validity and tested for reliability. RESULTS: A response rate of 19% was attained. Nearly all (n = 244, 99%) participants used the Twin Block, and 90% (n = 218) prescribed full-time wear including/excluding eating. Although the majority (n = 168, 69%) had not made changes to their wear time prescriptions, nearly one-third (n = 75, 31%) had. Those who reported a change in their prescriptions currently prescribe less wear time than before, and commonly quoted 'research evidence' as the reason. A wide range in success rates (41%-100%) was reported, with patient compliance as the main reason for treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: The Twin Block is a popular functional appliance among orthodontists in the UK, originally designed by Clark to be worn full time to maximise functional forces applied to the dentition. However, this wear regime may place considerable strain on patient compliance. Most participants prescribed full-time Twin Block wear excluding eating. Approximately one-third of orthodontists made changes to their wear time prescriptions during their practising career, and currently instruct less wear time than before.

Non-surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.

BACKGROUND: Deviation from a normal bite can be defined as malocclusion. Orthodontic treatment takes 20 months on average to correct malocclusion. Accelerating the rate of tooth movement may help to reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment and associated unwanted effects including orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR), demineralisation and reduced patient motivation and compliance. Several non-surgical adjuncts have been advocated with the aim of accelerating the rate of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM).         OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of non-surgical adjunctive interventions on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and the overall duration of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 6 September 2022 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people receiving orthodontic treatment using fixed or removable appliances along with non-surgical adjunctive interventions to accelerate tooth movement. We excluded split-mouth studies and studies that involved people who were treated with orthognathic surgery, or who had cleft lip or palate, or other craniofacial syndromes or deformities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were responsible for study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction; they carried out these tasks independently. Disagreements were resolved by discussion amongst the review team to reach consensus.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies, none of which were rated as low risk of bias overall. We categorised the included studies as testing light vibrational forces or photobiomodulation, the latter including low level laser therapy and light emitting diode. The studies assessed non-surgical interventions added to fixed or removable orthodontic appliances compared to treatment without the adjunct. A total of 1027 participants (children and adults) were recruited with loss to follow-up ranging from 0% to 27% of the original samples.  Certainty of the evidence For all comparisons and outcomes presented below, the certainty of the evidence is low to very low. Light vibrational forces  Eleven studies assessed how applying light vibrational forces (LVF) affected orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). There was no evidence of a difference between the intervention and control groups for duration of orthodontic treatment (MD -0.61 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.44 to 1.22; 2 studies, 77 participants); total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment visits (MD -0.32 visits, 95% CI -1.69 to 1.05; 2 studies, 77 participants); orthodontic tooth movement during the early alignment stage (reduction of lower incisor irregularity (LII)) at 4-6 weeks (MD 0.12 mm, 95% CI -1.77 to 2.01; 3 studies, 144 participants), or 10-16 weeks (MD -0.18 mm, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.83; 4 studies, 175 participants); rate of canine distalisation (MD -0.01 mm/month, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.18; 2 studies, 40 participants); or rate of OTM during en masse space closure (MD 0.10 mm per month, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.29; 2 studies, 81 participants). No evidence of a difference was found between LVF and control groups in rate of OTM when using removable orthodontic aligners. Nor did the studies show evidence of a difference between groups for our secondary outcomes, including patient perception of pain, patient-reported need for analgesics at different stages of treatment and harms or side effects.  Photobiomodulation Ten studies assessed the effect of applying low level laser therapy (LLLT) on rate of OTM. We found that participants in the LLLT group had a statistically significantly shorter length of time for the teeth to align in the early stages of treatment (MD -50 days, 95% CI -58 to -42; 2 studies, 62 participants) and required fewer appointments (-2.3, 95% CI -2.5 to -2.0; 2 studies, 125 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between the LLLT and control groups in OTM when assessed as percentage reduction in LII in the first month of alignment (1.63%, 95% CI -2.60 to 5.86; 2 studies, 56 participants) or in the second month (percentage reduction MD 3.75%, 95% CI -1.74 to 9.24; 2 studies, 56 participants). However, LLLT resulted in an increase in OTM during the space closure stage in the maxillary arch (MD 0.18 mm/month, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.33; 1 study; 65 participants; very low level of certainty) and the mandibular arch (right side MD 0.16 mm/month, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.19; 1 study; 65 participants). In addition, LLLT resulted in an increased  rate of OTM during maxillary canine retraction (MD 0.01 mm/month, 95% CI 0 to 0.02; 1 study, 37 participants). These  findings were not clinically significant. The studies showed no evidence of a difference between groups for our secondary outcomes, including OIIRR, periodontal health and patient perception of pain at early stages of treatment. Two studies assessed the influence of applying light-emitting diode (LED) on OTM. Participants in the LED group required a significantly shorter time to align the mandibular arch compared to the control group (MD -24.50 days, 95% CI -42.45 to -6.55, 1 study, 34 participants). There is no evidence that LED application increased the rate of OTM during maxillary canine retraction (MD 0.01 mm/month, 95% CI 0 to 0.02; P = 0.28; 1 study, 39 participants ). In terms of secondary outcomes, one study assessed patient perception of pain and found no evidence of a difference between groups.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from randomised controlled trials concerning the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions to accelerate orthodontic treatment is of low to very low certainty. It suggests that there is no additional benefit of light vibrational forces or photobiomodulation for reducing the duration of orthodontic treatment. Although there may be a limited benefit from photobiomodulation application for accelerating discrete treatment phases, these results have to be interpreted with caution due to their questionable clinical significance. Further well-designed, rigorous RCTs with longer follow-up periods spanning from start to completion of orthodontic treatment are required to determine whether non-surgical interventions may reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment by a clinically significant amount, with minimal adverse effects.

The prevalence of the failure of fixed orthodontic bonded retainers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the scientific literature for the prevalence of failure rate of fixed orthodontic bonded retainer (FOBR). METHOD: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective non-RCTs involving participants who had FOBR fitted were included. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of science, MEDLINE, and EMBASE via OVID were searched from inception to January 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. The main outcome was the failure rate of FOBRs. The secondary outcome was to identify factors that can influence the failure of FOBR. Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were undertaken using Revman, version5.4. A random-effects model was used. Quality assessment using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies (25 RCTs and 9 prospective clinical studies) (3484 participants) were included in this review. The overall failure rate of bonded retainers, after excluding high-risk studies, was 35.22% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.46-42.98). The failure rate is increased with the duration of follow up; with short-term follow-up rate 24.18% (95% CI 20.16-28.21), medium-term follow up 40.09% (95% CI 30.92-49.26), and long-term follow up 53.85% (95% CI 40.31-67.39). There is a low level of evidence to suggest there is no statistically significant difference in the failure rate of fixed retainers using direct versus indirect bonding methods, using liquid resin versus without liquid resin, and fibre-reinforced composite retainers compared to multi-stranded stainless steel retainers. DISCUSSION: There is low-quality evidence to suggest that the failure rate of FOBR is relatively high. There is a need for high-quality, well-reported clinical studies to assess factors that can influence the failure rate of FOBR. REGISTRATION: CRD42021190910.

Development of intra-oral automated landmark recognition (ALR) for dental and occlusal outcome measurements.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies embracing digital technology and automated methods of scoring dental arch relationships have shown that such technology is valid and accurate. To date, however there is no published literature on artificial intelligence and machine learning to completely automate the process of dental landmark recognition. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a fully automated system and software tool for the identification of landmarks on human teeth using geometric computing, image segmenting, and machine learning technology. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty-nine digital models were used in the automated landmark recognition (ALR) validation phase, 161 of which were digital models from cleft palate subjects aged 5 years. These were manually annotated to facilitate qualitative validation. Additionally, landmarks were placed on 20 adult digital models manually by 3 independent observers. The same models were subjected to scoring using the ALR software and the differences (in mm) were calculated. All the teeth from the 239 models were evaluated for correct recognition by the ALR with a breakdown to find which stages of the process caused the errors. RESULTS: The results revealed that 1526 out of 1915 teeth (79.7%) were correctly identified, and the accuracy validation gave 95% confidence intervals for the geometric mean error of [0.285, 0.317] for the humans and [0.269, 0.325] for ALR-a negligible difference. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: It is anticipated that ALR software tool will have applications throughout clinical dentistry and anthropology, and in research will constitute an accurate and objective tool for handling large datasets without the need for time intensive employment of experts to place landmarks manually.

A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot orthodontic bracket systems: part 1-duration of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment duration between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot systems and determine factors influencing treatment duration. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eligible participants aged 12 years or over were allocated to the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. Outcome measures included duration of: 1. overall treatment, 2. levelling and alignment, 3. working and finishing, and 4. appointment numbers and other treatment-related factors. Parametric tests (independent samples t-test) and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher's exact tests and Mann-Whitney U-test) assessed differences between groups. A multiple linear regression analysis identified factors influencing treatment duration (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P > 0.05). The mean duration of treatment for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot groups was 29.3 and 31.2 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in terms of treatment duration, duration of the key stages of treatment, and number of appointments (P > 0.05). The regression analysis revealed 33.0 per cent of variance in treatment duration was explained by age at bonding, Class II division 2 malocclusion, number of failed appointments, number of emergency appointments, and transfer to another clinician. There were no adverse events. LIMITATIONS: It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in treatment duration between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. Increasing patient age, Class II division 2 malocclusion, number of failed and emergency appointments, and multi-operator treatment all increase orthodontic treatment duration. REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338. PROTOCOL: The protocol was published at DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-389.

A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot orthodontic bracket systems: part 3-biological side-effects of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) and patient perception of pain during orthodontic treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eligible participants aged 12 years or above were allocated to treatment with the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. OIIRR was assessed radiographically using standardized periapical radiographs before and after 9 months from the start of treatment. Patient perception of pain was assessed using a validated patient questionnaire at 6 months from the start of treatment. Parametric tests (t-test) and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher's exact tests and Kruskal-Wallis test) assessed differences between the groups (P < 0.05). The correlation between severity of OIIRR and abnormal root morphology, history of dental trauma, and pain during treatment was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the severity of the OIIRR nor patient perception of pain between the two study groups (P = 0.115 and P = 0.08 respectively). The correlation between the severity of OIIRR and abnormal root morphology or history of dental trauma was not statistically significant (P = 0.086 and P = 0.313). Moreover, there was no significant correlation between the severity of OIIRR and pain during treatment (R = 0.045, P = 0.617). LIMITATIONS: It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation, and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of bracket slot size on the severity of OIIRR and patient perception of pain are not significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338.

A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot orthodontic bracket systems: part 2-quality of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of orthodontic treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eligible participants aged 12 years or over were allocated to the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. Outcome measures included: 1. ABO cast-radiograph evaluation (CR-EVAL), 2. peer assessment rating (PAR) scores, 3. incisor inclination, and 4. patient perception using the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need aesthetic component (IOTN AC) and three validated questionnaires before, during and after treatment. Parametric tests [independent samples t-test and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)] and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher's exact tests and Mann-Whitney U-test) assessed differences between groups (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P > 0.05). The mean total ABO CR-EVAL scores were 34.7 and 34.5; mean percentage PAR score reduction 74.1 per cent and 77.1 per cent; mean change for maxillary incisor inclination 2.9 degrees and 1.6 degrees and for mandibular incisor inclination 2.7 degrees and 1.4 degrees for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch groups, respectively. Improvement in patient perception of aesthetics after treatment was statistically significant for both groups (P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups for ABO CR-EVAL, percentage PAR score reduction, incisor inclination, and patient perception of treatment (P > 0.05). No adverse events were observed during treatment. LIMITATIONS: It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in the quality of occlusal outcomes, incisor inclination and patient perception of treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338. PROTOCOL: The protocol was published at DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-389.

Non-surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment.

BACKGROUND: Accelerating the rate of tooth movement may help to reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment and associated unwanted effects including root resorption and enamel demineralisation. Several methods, including surgical and non-surgical adjuncts, have been advocated to accelerate the rate of tooth movement. Non-surgical techniques include low-intensity laser irradiation, resonance vibration, pulsed electromagnetic fields, electrical currents and pharmacological approaches. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of non-surgical adjunctive interventions on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and the overall duration of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 25 November 2014: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to November 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to November 2014), LILACS via BIREME (1980 to November 2014), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (November 2014), the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov; November 2014) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (November 2014). We checked the reference lists of all trials identified for further studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people receiving orthodontic treatment using fixed appliances along with non-surgical adjunctive interventions to accelerate tooth movement. We excluded non-parallel design studies (for example, split-mouth) as we regarded them as inappropriate for assessment of the effects of this type of intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were responsible for study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction; they carried out these tasks independently. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion amongst the review team to reach consensus. The review authors contacted the corresponding authors of trials to obtain missing information and data to allow calculation of mean differences (MD), 95% confidence intervals (CI) or risk ratios (RR) when these were not reported. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies in this review, which were both assessed as being at high risk of bias. The two studies, involving a total of 111 participants, compared the use of Tooth Masseuse and OrthoAccel with conventional treatment mechanics during orthodontic alignment and canine retraction phases, respectively. Both studies included objective assessment of the amount or rate of tooth movement, but we were not able to meta-analyse this data as they used different outcome measurements at different stages of the orthodontic treatment process. One study measured subjective evaluation of pain and discomfort and the other evaluated adverse effects. The studies did not directly report either the duration of orthodontic treatment or the number of visits during active treatment.Using the Tooth Masseuse with 111 Hz at 0.06 Newtons (N) for 20 minutes daily resulted in greater reduction in irregularity in the lower incisor region over 10 weeks, assessed using Little's Irregularity Index (LII) with a mean difference (MD) of 0.6 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.94 to 2.34) when compared to the control group. Pain and discomfort increased at six to eight hours after arch wire placement and after seven days, with minimal difference between the intervention and control groups. No statistical tests were provided for either variable and the differences between the two groups were not clinically important.Using OrthoAccel with 30 Hz at 0.25 N for 20 minutes daily produced a higher rate of maxillary canine distalisation in comparison to the control group (MD 0.37 mm/month; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.81; P = 0.05). Whilst this difference suggested 50% faster tooth movement using the vibrational appliance, the absolute differences were marginal and deemed clinically unimportant. Similar levels of non-serious adverse effects were reported in the intervention and control groups with a risk ratio of 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 2.85).Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low and therefore we cannot rely on the findings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very little clinical research concerning the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions to accelerate orthodontic treatment. The available evidence is of very low quality and so it is not possible to determine if there is a positive effect of non-surgical adjunctive interventions to accelerate tooth movement. Although there have been claims that there may be a positive effect of light vibrational forces, results of the current studies do not reach either statistical or clinical significance. Further well-designed and rigorous RCTs with longer follow-up periods are required to determine whether non-surgical interventions may result in a clinically important reduction in the duration of orthodontic treatment, without any adverse effects.

Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment.

BACKGROUND: A range of surgical and non-surgical techniques have received increasing attention in recent years in an effort to reduce the duration of a course of orthodontic treatment. Various surgical techniques have been used; however, uncertainty exists in relation to the effectiveness of these procedures and the possible adverse effects related to them. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of surgically assisted orthodontics on the duration and outcome of orthodontic treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 10 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 10 September 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 10 September 2014), LILACS via BIREME (1980 to 10 September 2014), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 10 September 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 10 September 2014), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 10 September 2014). We checked the reference lists of all trials identified for further studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating tooth movement compared with conventional treatment (no surgical adjunctive procedure). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the trials and extracted data. We used the fixed-effect 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 four RCTs involving a total of 57 participants ranging in age from 11 to 33 years. The interventions evaluated were corticotomies to facilitate orthodontic space closure or alignment of an ectopic maxillary canine, with the effect of repeated surgical procedures assessed in one of these studies. The studies did not report directly on the primary outcome as prespecified in our protocol: duration of orthodontic treatment, number of visits during active treatment (scheduled and unscheduled) and duration of visits. The main outcome assessed within the trials was the rate of tooth movement, with periodontal effects assessed in one trial and pain assessed in one trial. A maximum of just three trials with small sample sizes were available for each comparison and outcome. We assessed all of the studies as being at unclear risk of bias.Tooth movement was found to be slightly quicker with surgically assisted orthodontics in comparison with conventional treatment over periods of one month (MD 0.61 mm; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.72; P value < 0.001) and three months (MD 2.03 mm, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.54; P value < 0.001). Our results and conclusions should be interpreted with caution given the small number of included studies. Information on adverse events was sought; however, no data were reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found that there is limited research concerning the effectiveness of surgical interventions to accelerate orthodontic treatment, with no studies directly assessing our prespecified primary outcome. The available evidence is of low quality, which indicates that further research is likely to change the estimate of the effect. Based on measured outcomes in the short-term, these procedures do appear to show promise as a means of accelerating tooth movement. It is therefore possible that these procedures may prove useful; however, further prospective research comprising assessment of the entirety of treatment with longer follow-up is required to confirm any possible benefit.

Physico-Mechanical Properties and Bonding Performance of Graphene-Added Orthodontic Adhesives.

This study aimed to assess the key physico-mechanical properties and bonding performance of orthodontic adhesives with graphene addition for bonding a fixed retainer. Transbond LR (3M) and Transbond LV (3M) with no graphene were set as the control groups. Graphene was added into LR and LV at concentrations of 0.01 wt%, 0.05 wt% and 0.1 wt%. The stickiness of the uncured samples (n = 5) and real-time degree of conversion (DC) of the samples (n = 3) were measured over a 24-h period using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. The hardness and other mechanical parameters, including the Martens hardness (HM), indentation modulus (EIT), elastic index (ηIT) and creep (CIT), were measured (n = 5). To measure the shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive composites were applied using a mold to bond the retainer wire to the lingual surfaces of bovine incisors (n = 10). Fracture modes subsequent to the SBS test were examined under light microscopy. Statistical analysis was conducted using ANOVA and Tukey tests (α = 0.05). In the LR groups, the LR + 0.01 showed the highest SBS (12.6 ± 2.0 MPa) and HM (539.4 ± 17.9 N/mm2), while the LV + 0.05 (7.7 ± 1.1 MPa) had the highest SBS and the LV + 0.1 had the highest HM (312.4 ± 17.8 N/mm2) among the LV groups. The most frequent failure mode observed was adhesive fracture followed by mixed fracture. No statistical difference was found between the graphene-added groups and the control groups in terms of the EIT, ηIT and CIT, except that the CIT was significantly lower in the LR + 0.01 than in the control group. Graphene addition had no significant adverse effect on the stickiness and DC of both LR and LV.

Developments in autotransplantation of teeth.

Transplantation of teeth has been done for hundreds of years. In the late 18th and early 19th century transplants of teeth between individuals were relatively common at specialist dental practices in London. Surprisingly tooth allotransplants have been found to last 6 years on average. In Scandinavia during the 1950 and 1960's autotransplantation of teeth began to be carried out under increasingly controlled conditions. These have proved to be very successful in long term studies with autotransplants surviving up to 45 years post-surgery. Recent developments in cone beam CT and rapid 3D prototyping have enabled the fabrication of accurate surgical templates which can be used to prepare the recipient site immediately prior to transplantation. This has resulted in a drastically reduced extra-oral time for the transplant teeth which can be expected to improve success rates further. Autotransplants provide significant advantages compared to single tooth implants and should be considered the treatment of choice in the growing child.

Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

OBJECTIVES: To compare maxillary first molar anchorage loss between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot fixed appliance systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients requiring bilateral maxillary premolar extractions (n = 74) within a randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot MBT bracket systems (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were included. Three-dimensional pre- and posttreatment digital models were landmarked and measured (R700 scanner and OrthoAnalyzer software, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Anteroposterior position of the first molars was measured using the third medial rugae point as a reference. Anchorage loss (AL) represented the subtraction of the posttreatment distance from the pretreatment distance for both anchorage loss right (ALR) and left (ALL) sides. The values were then compared using a two-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: There were 41 and 33 cases for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot systems, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for the presence or absence of anchorage devices (P = .050). For the total sample: 0.018-inch ALR = 3.86 mm, ALL = 3.30 mm and 0.022-inch ALR = 3.73 mm, ALL = 3.47 mm (P = .970). There was also no significant difference between the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch groups when subjects with anchorage devices were excluded (P = .383). CONCLUSIONS: Bracket slot size does not influence maxillary molar anchorage loss during orthodontic treatment.

Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Edgewise fixed orthodontic appliances are available in two different bracket slot sizes (0.018 and 0.022 inch). Both systems are used by clinicians worldwide with some orthodontists claiming the superiority and clinical advantages of one system over the other. However, the scientific evidence supporting this area is scarce and weak. This leaves the clinician's choice of bracket slot system to clinical preference. We aim to compare the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch pre-adjusted bracket slot systems in terms of the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, undertaken in the secondary care hospital environment in the NHS Tayside region of Scotland (United Kingdom). A total of 216 orthodontic patients will be recruited in three centers in secondary care hospitals in NHS Tayside. The participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slot systems (n = 108 for each group) using Victory series™ conventional pre-adjusted bracket systems (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, United States). Baseline records and outcome data collected during and at the end of orthodontic treatment will be assessed. The primary outcome measures will be the duration of orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches. The secondary outcome measures will be the number of scheduled appointments for orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches, treatment outcome using Peer Assessment Rating index (PAR), orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (as measured using periapical radiographs) and the patient's perception of wearing orthodontic appliances. DISCUSSION: The results from the current study will serve as evidence to guide the clinician in deciding whether the difference in bracket slot size has a significant impact on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338.

Film and digital periapical radiographs for the measurement of apical root shortening.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and agreement of scanned film and digital periapical radiographs for the measurement of apical root shortening. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-four film and digital [phosphor plate sensor (PPS)] periapical radiographs were taken using the long-cone paralleling technique for six extracted teeth before and after 1mm of apical root trimming. All teeth were mounted using a typodont and the radiographs were recorded using a film holder and polysiloxane occlusal index for each tooth to ensure standardization during the different radiographic exposures. The film radiographs were scanned and the tooth length measurements for the scanned film and digital (PPS) images were calculated using Image-J-Link 1.4 software (http://rebweb.nih.gov/ij/index.html) for the two groups. The accuracy and agreement among the tooth length measurements from each group and the true tooth length measurements were calculated using intra-class correlation (ICC) tests and Bland and Altman plots. RESULTS: A high level of agreement was found between the true tooth length measurements and the scanned film measurements (ICC=0.979, limit of agreement 0.579 to -0.565) and the digital (PPS) radiograph measurements (ICC= 0.979, limit of agreement 0.596 to -0.763). Moreover, a high level of agreement was found between the scanned film and digital (PPS) radiographs for the measurement of tooth length ICC=0.991, limit of agreement 0.411-0.231. CONCLUSION: Film and digital (PPS) periapical radiographs are accurate methods for measuring apical root shortening with a high level of agreement. Key words:Root shortening, measurement, periapical radiographs, film, digital.