Comparative Evaluation of Digital Cephalometric Tracing Applications on Mobile Devices and Manual Tracing.

BACKGROUND Cephalometric radiography evaluates facial skeleton development and aids in diagnosis and treatment phases (pre and post) in orthodontics. This study aimed to compare digital cephalometric tracing using a smartphone application (App), a tablet-based platform, and manual tracing in 30 orthodontic patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty orthodontic pretreatment, criteria based, lateral cephalometric radiographs were analyzed/grouped for Steiner analysis parameters (5 skeletal, 3 dentals, 1 soft tissue) by 3 tracing methods [manual - group (Gp M), smartphone (Android - OS9) - Gp S, tablet (Apple - IOS13) - Gp T) after mandatory standardization/calibration. Measurements include 5 angular (SNA, SNB, ANB, SNMPA, SNOP), 3 linear U1NA, L1NB, U1L1, and 1 soft tissue (S line) (millimeters and degrees). Inter-examiner rating was determined using Dahlberg's test. After normality distribution testing (Shapiro-Wilk), data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for group differences. Homogeneity of variance was verified using the Levene test. Differences were determined on probability value of (p≤0.05). RESULTS The results showed that Steiner's analysis parameters were similar in all groups with homogenous variances. Highest differences in mean values were found for L1NB, U1L1, and S line measurement, with higher values being observed in Gp S tracings. However, these differences were not statistically significant (p≤0.05). All parameters, irrespective of being measured in either degrees or millimeters, had means comparable to each other. CONCLUSIONS Smartphone and tablet-based applications produced tracings that were comparable and reliable when compared to conventional manual tracings. Standardization of images, processing, printing, and calibration of devices is important to achieve good results.

White spot lesion-related perception of aesthetics and treatment satisfaction among orthodontic patients, orthodontists and other dental specialists.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of various degrees of white spot lesions (WSLs) of maxillary anterior teeth on the aesthetic perception and treatment satisfaction among orthodontic patients, orthodontists and other dental specialists and to evaluate the differences among the three groups. METHODS: A total of 45 orthodontic patients (OP), 45 orthodontists (OR) and 45 other dental specialists (OS) were recruited. Subjective evaluations of perceived aesthetics and treatment satisfaction were performed towards eight digitally generated photographs of maxillary anterior teeth with incremental degrees of WSLs using a numerical visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100. Data were collected and analysed with descriptive statistics, repeated one-way analysis of variance and multivariable generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: A total of 135 valid questionnaires were collected. Regarding aesthetic scores for WSLs, OP gave more positive scores than OR and OS (p < .05) towards excessive white spot formation without colouration and were more tolerant than OR (p < .05) towards excessive white spot formation with slight colouration. The level of treatment satisfaction for slight to severe WSLs without cavitation was higher in OP than OR. Patients with higher education levels had more negative scores for aesthetic perception and treatment satisfaction (p < .05). Patients who brushed teeth more frequently scored lower in treatment satisfaction (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists were the most critical when evaluating aesthetics and treatment satisfaction for slight to severe WSLs without cavitation. For orthodontic patients, better oral hygiene habits and higher education levels were associated with more critical attitudes towards WSLs.

Post-graduation career pathways: a nationwide survey among dental students in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: Oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) has to compete with other specialties for the best candidates. With the upcoming change of generations (Z and Alpha) and the movement toward gender parity of dentistry, understanding changing preferences and misconceptions is essential. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online survey was conducted by the German-Association-of-Oral-and-Maxillofacial-Surgery (DGMKG) across German dental schools. The survey collected demographic data, academic background, and career aspirations, with a focus on OMFS. The dental student survey results were compared to a survey given to OMFS Specialists. RESULTS: 637 dental students, mainly female (70%), from 30 German universities participated. 27% had defined career aspirations post-graduation, with self-employment and academia being popular choices. 67% were unsure. Specializations leaned towards restorative dentistry (41%), orthodontics (36%), and prosthodontics (31%). While 73% showed interest in surgical practices, 20% were attracted in specializing in OMFS. Of those averse to OMFS, 78% cited long training duration as the deterrent, 12% were put off by perceived unattractive working hours. Other reasons included negative undergraduate experiences, scarcity of part-time positions, and perceived inadequate earnings. CONCLUSION: Accurate data is crucial for career decisions. OMFS societies must proactively share accurate information and guide students. OMFS offers family-friendly hours, and while its training might be longer than dental specialties, it is on par with other surgical professions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dental students consistently regard OMFS as commendable career path. To guarantee sustained OMFS expertise, it is imperative to nurture this interest through dedicated academic mentorship and innovative education, thereby solidifying their professional direction.

Radiation exposure during orthodontic treatment: risk to children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate radiation risk to children and adolescents during orthodontic treatment by retrieving number and type of radiographs from the patient records. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Radiographs, along with justifications for radiation exposure, were obtained retrospectively from the patient records of 1,790 children and adolescents referred to two Swedish orthodontic clinics. Data were grouped according to treatment stage: treatment planning, treatment, and follow-up. Estimated risk was calculated using the concept of effective dose. RESULTS: Each patient had received around seven radiographs for orthodontic purposes. The most common exposures during treatment planning were one panoramic, one lateral, and three intraoral periapical radiographs. A small number of patients received a tomographic examination (8.2%). Few justifications for treatment planning and follow-up, but more in the actual treatment stage, had been recorded. The most common examinations were to assess root resorption and the positions of unerupted teeth, or simply carry out an unspecified control. The estimated risk of developing fatal cancer was considered low. The radiation risk from orthodontic treatment was equivalent to about 5-10 days of natural background radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents sometimes undergo multiple radiographic examinations, but despite the low radiation burden, accumulated radiation exposure should be considered and justified in young patients.

Precautions and possibilities in orthodontic treatment of periodontally compromised patients: Current recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: Orthodontic treatment plays a crucial role in achieving optimal dental esthetics and functional occlusion. However, when periodontally compromised patients are involved, additional precautions and considerations are critical. This article aims to provide up-to-date recommendations for the orthodontic treatment of periodontally compromised patients. CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Comprehensive diagnosis of the patient's periodontal status, inherent malocclusion, and secondary malocclusion resulting from periodontal disease are essential for achieving optimal esthetics and functional occlusion. This can be facilitated through the use of a simplified checklist. Prior to orthodontic treatment, pre-existing periodontal diseases should be managed. Light and controlled forces should be used to minimize the risk of adverse effects on the periodontium, and any potential traumatic occlusion during tooth movement should be minimized. Furthermore, careful anchorage management is required, and proper application of temporary anchorage devices can significantly expand the scope of orthodontic treatment. Finally, treatment results are maintained by ongoing supportive periodontal therapy even during the retention period. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents clinical cases demonstrating the importance of accurate diagnosis in orthodontics and periodontics and the positive impact of orthodontic treatment on patients with pre-existing periodontal diseases. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: An up-to-date orthodontic treatment protocol for periodontally compromised patients is presented.

"Over-reviewing" of research? An analysis of orthodontic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Research overviews may be undertaken to identify gaps in the literature, evaluate existing systematic reviews (SRs), and summarize evidence. This paper aims to profile overviews that have been conducted in orthodontics and related interventions since 2012 and to evaluate the degree of overlap among these overviews. METHODS: Overviews published between January 1, 2012 and June 20, 2023 were identified using an electronic search involving Google Scholar and PubMed. A descriptive summary was produced, and citation matrices were used to evaluate the percentage of overlap between overviews using corrected covered area and covered area. This was classified as slight, moderate, high, or very high. RESULTS: A total of 35 overviews were identified across a wide range of topics. Eight overviews included <10 SRs; 21 had 10-20 SRs; and 6 included >20 SRs (median no. of SRs per overview, 15; range, 3-62). Meta-analysis was conducted in only 5 overviews. Overlap between overviews on the same topic ranged from slight (2.7%) to very high (53.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Almost all overview topics address treatments and their effects, with a wide variation in the number and quality of SRs included. There is considerable overlap in some orthodontic overviews, suggesting unnecessary duplication and research waste. Researchers should be encouraged to focus on primary data collection to add more high-quality data to SRs, which will ultimately enhance the yield from secondary and tertiary orthodontic research.

A review of oral pathology in orthodontics. Part 2: Pathology of the jaw bones.

For many patients, their first full jaw imagining will be requested and reported by an orthodontist. This may lead to the discovery of unexpected pathology in the jaws. In this review article, we discuss the clinical and radiological appearance as well as the pathologic features and treatment of the more common entities of the jaws. In addition, we will discuss the less common lesions which carry important consequences for the patient. Through the identification of these lesions, appropriate referral and management can be pursued.

A review of oral pathology in orthodontics. Part 1: Soft-tissue pathology.

Orthodontists are well placed to detect soft-tissue disease of the oral cavity and associated structures because of the frequent repeat examinations of their patients. This review describes the clinical manifestations, pathologic features, and treatment of the soft-tissue pathology most likely to be encountered by the orthodontist and uncommon soft-tissue disease with significant implications for the patient. The recognition of soft-tissue disease will allow reassurance, referral, and early intervention when required.

2023-2024 American Board of Orthodontics practice analysis study: Part 1.

As a specialty board, the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) serves to protect the public and the orthodontic specialty by certifying orthodontists. The demonstration of commitment to lifelong learning and self-improvement is critical to achieving the highest level of patient care. The ABO completed a practice analysis study in 2023 to ensure all examinations represent current assessments of proficiency in orthodontics at a level of quality that satisfies professional expectations. The practice analysis is essential to providing a demonstrable relationship between the examination content and orthodontic practice and provides a critical foundation for ABO's examination programs.

The performance of artificial intelligence models in generating responses to general orthodontic questions: ChatGPT vs Google Bard.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of 2 artificial intelligence (AI) models, Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer-3.5 (ChatGPT-3.5; OpenAI, San Francisco, Calif) and Google Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (Google Bard; Bard Experiment, Google, Mountain View, Calif), in terms of response accuracy, completeness, generation time, and response length when answering general orthodontic questions. METHODS: A team of orthodontic specialists developed a set of 100 questions in 10 orthodontic domains. One author submitted the questions to both ChatGPT and Google Bard. The AI-generated responses from both models were randomly assigned into 2 forms and sent to 5 blinded and independent assessors. The quality of AI-generated responses was evaluated using a newly developed tool for accuracy of information and completeness. In addition, response generation time and length were recorded. RESULTS: The accuracy and completeness of responses were high in both AI models. The median accuracy score was 9 (interquartile range [IQR]: 8-9) for ChatGPT and 8 (IQR: 8-9) for Google Bard (Median difference: 1; P <0.001). The median completeness score was similar in both models, with 8 (IQR: 8-9) for ChatGPT and 8 (IQR: 7-9) for Google Bard. The odds of accuracy and completeness were higher by 31% and 23% in ChatGPT than in Google Bard. Google Bard's response generation time was significantly shorter than that of ChatGPT by 10.4 second/question. However, both models were similar in terms of response length generation. CONCLUSIONS: Both ChatGPT and Google Bard generated responses were rated with a high level of accuracy and completeness to the posed general orthodontic questions. However, acquiring answers was generally faster using the Google Bard model.

Exploring publications in 3 major orthodontic journals: A comparative bibliometric analysis of two 10-year periods (2002-2011 and 2012-2021).

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis examining contributing countries and collaborative networks, authors and collaborative relationships, the performance of the institutions, and cocited journals and references in 3 major orthodontic journals (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics, and Angle Orthodontist) over two 10-year periods (2002-2011 and 2012-2021). METHODS: In this study, 4432 publications in the first decade and 4012 publications in the second decade were quantitatively analyzed and visualized using visualization software such as VOSviewer (Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands), CiteSpace (Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa), and Scimago Graphica (SCImago Lab, Spain). RESULTS: Institutions in the United States had the highest number of publications through the 2 decades, whereas Brazil, South Korea, and China achieved significant improvements in performance in the second decade compared with the first. Closer collaborative networks among scholars were revealed in the second decade. The cocitation analysis of the journals showed that highly cited journals included more professional orthodontic journals in the second decade than in the first decade. CONCLUSIONS: Bibliometric analysis of publications in 3 major orthodontic journals over two 10-year periods revealed a trend of diversification in countries and institutions participating in publishing, international collaborations, and collaboration networks among authors in the field of orthodontics during the 2 decades.

Examination of the reliability and readability of Chatbot Generative Pretrained Transformer's (ChatGPT) responses to questions about orthodontics and the evolution of these responses in an updated version.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess the reliability and readability of Chatbot Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) responses to questions about orthodontics and the evolution of these responses in an updated version. METHODS: Frequently asked questions about orthodontics by laypeople on Web sites were determined using the Google Search Tool. These questions were asked to both ChatGPT's March 23 version and May 24 version on April 20, 2023, and July 12, 2023, respectively. Responses were assessed for readability and reliability using the Flesch-Kincaid and DISCERN tests. RESULTS: The mean DISCERN value for general questions was 2.96 ± 0.05, 3.04 ± 0.06, 2.38 ± 0.27, and 2.82 ± 0.31 for treatment-related questions; the mean Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score for general questions was 29.28 ± 8.22, 25.12 ± 7.39, 47.67 ± 10.77, and 41.60 ± 9.54 for treatment-related questions; mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for general questions was 14.52 ± 1.48 and 14.04 ± 1.25 and 11.90 ± 2.08 and 11.41 ± 1.88 for treatment-related questions; in first and second evaluations respectively (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the second evaluation, the reliability of the answers given to general questions and treatment-related questions increased. However, in both evaluations, the reliability of the answers was found to be moderate according to the DISCERN tool. On the second evaluation, Flesch Reading Ease Scores for both general questions and treatment-related questions decreased, meaning that the readability of the new response texts became more difficult. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level results were found at the college graduate level in the first and second evaluations for general questions and at the high school level in the first and second evaluations for treatment-related questions.

Association between crowding estimation and extraction recommendations in orthodontics.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how precisely orthodontists in the United States (US) assess crowding or at what range of crowding they recommend extraction. This study aimed to assess the relationship between estimated crowding in patients with a Class I relationship and extraction recommendation by orthodontists in the US. The secondary aims were to evaluate the accuracy and precision of clinician estimations and determine if clinician background traits play a role in extraction decision-making. METHODS: An electronic survey was prepared using 4 patients with a Class I relationship with anterior crowding selected from a University Orthodontics Clinic and was sent to approximately 10,400 subjects through Facebook and the American Association of Orthodontists Partners in Research program. RESULTS: From the 297 responses received, most clinicians recommended extraction once crowding reached 9-10 mm in either the maxilla or the mandible. The data from 2 patients suggest this decision was more strongly correlated with mandibular crowding. Clinician estimations varied widely but, on average, were precise within approximately 2 mm of objective measurements. There was a tendency to overestimate crowding, especially by Northeastern practitioners. Clinicians who reported routinely measuring crowding or who reported that they recommended extractions to >10% of their patients were 1.2-2.0 and 1.4-1.6 times more likely, respectively, to recommend extraction in the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Crowding estimation was highly subjective and varied widely among clinicians. Most clinicians recommended extraction once maxillary or mandibular crowding approximated 9-10 mm. Some clinician demographics were correlated with the precision and accuracy of estimations and the likelihood of extraction in the patients.

The uses of 3-dimensional printing technology in orthodontic offices in North America.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to examine the use of orthodontic 3-dimensional (3D) printing technology in North America and to understand why orthodontists are, or are not, incorporating 3D printing technology in their practices. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was delivered on a secure online platform, RedCap (Case Western Reserve University Clinical and Translational Science Award; no. UL1TR002548). The survey consisted of 14-34 items with branching logic. The association between participant demographics and in-house 3D printing was assessed using a chi-square test of independence. RESULTS: A total of 518 responses were recorded. The highest number of responses came from respondents in the 36-45-year age group. Most of the respondents were practice owners; 46.9% had 3D printers in their office. Chi-square tests of independence were performed on the data to see which associations existed. The strongest statistical associations with using an in-house 3D printer are seen with patient load, practice type, years since residency, and orthodontist's position. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 75% of orthodontists use 3D printing technology in some capacity in North America. Major factors that influenced orthodontists to incorporate 3D printing technology into their office were self-interest and research. Major factors that have prevented orthodontists from not incorporating 3D printing technology into their office were space for equipment/ventilation and digital workflow training deficit. Orthodontists use their 3D printers mostly to make plastic retainers from printed models. The strongest associations with using in-house 3D printers are seen in patient load, practice type, years since residency, and orthodontist position. Increasing patient load and being in private practice increases the likelihood of having a 3D printer.

Adult orthodontics, motivations for treatment, choice, and impact of appliances: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the rationale for adult patients undertaking orthodontic treatment and the impact of appliances on their quality of life has become increasingly important to research efforts and clinical care. This study aimed to understand why adult patients undergo orthodontic treatment and their overall experience with the choice of appliance. METHODS: A cross-sectional qualitative study using semistructured interviews with adult patients from 4 private specialist orthodontic practices in the London region involving a purposive homogeneous sampling technique to obtain variation regarding gender, treatment modalities (fixed ceramic [FC], removable aligner [RA], and fixed lingual [FL] appliances), and stages of treatment (early, late, and posttreatment stage) was undertaken. A piloted topic guide was used to standardize data collection. Interviews were audio recorded, and field notes were taken. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using framework methodology until data saturation was reached. RESULTS: A total of 22 participants (FC, 8; RA, 8; and FL, 6), with a mean age of 38.9 ± 11.7 years, with the majority being female (n = 13; 59.1%), were interviewed. Psychosocial and dental health-related factors were reported as the main reasons to seek orthodontic treatment. Social factors and appliance features influence an adult's decision-making in selecting a specific orthodontic appliance. Wearing FC, RA, and FL was seen to have both positive and negative impacts on an adult's quality of life. Functional and psychological factors were the strong influencers on patients' treatment experience. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted the influence of psychosocial factors and dental health concerns in the decision-making processes of adults seeking orthodontic treatment. FC, RA, and FL appear to affect an adult's quality of life, with functional and psychosocial factors being commonly reported.

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.

Gender-specific treatment effects and outcomes reported in orthodontic research. A cross-sectional empirical study.

AIM: To identify practices of assessment of gender effects in research articles in orthodontics and detect whether there were significant differences in the treatment effects on outcomes according to gender. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four major orthodontic journals were sought over a 3-year period to identify publications which included assessment of gender effects on outcomes in their reporting. Data were extracted on the following characteristics: journal, year of publication, region of authorship, and study design. For the studies including reporting of gender effects, whether a significant effect existed was further documented. Additionally, for these studies, data were extracted on population, sample size per gender, treatment, comparison, outcome type, and nature and whether gender analysis was based on subgroup testing or included as a main effect. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, univariable, and multivariable regression models were utilized as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 718 research articles were eligible for inclusion out of a pool of 1,132 screened articles. Of those, 95 reported on any type of analysis on gender effects (95/718; 13.2%). In the 95 studies that reported assessment of gender effects, it was clear that the majority did not detect significant gender-related differences across the documented outcomes (range of frequency distribution for significant gender differences across all outcomes: 0-50%). Twenty-two articles overall (22/95; 23.2%) described a significant gender effect classified by outcome, 12 favoring female and 10 favoring male participants. Patterns of efficacy and adverse outcomes were schemed either favoring female (root resorption: 4/10; 40.0%, periodontal outcomes: 3/11; 27.3%) or male (cephalometric/growth changes following orthodontic treatment: 4/17; 23.5%) patients across the 22 studies with significant effects. Appropriately designed and adequately powered statistical analyses, with gender effect assessment as a main effect in a multivariable regression model was associated with 6.53 times higher odds for identifying significant gender effects (OR = 6.53; 95% CI: 2.15, 19.8; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: A very small proportion of research studies included gender effect assessment in their analyses. Of those, a quarter described significant effects. Nevertheless, careful analysis planning and strategies should be prioritized to allow for any meaningful interpretation.

Accuracy and reliability of magnetic resonance imaging in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a non-ionizing imaging technique. Using MRI in dentistry may potentially lower the general radiation dose of the examined population, provided MRI can replace various radiation-based images. Furthermore, novel MRI imaging modalities for three-dimensional and two-dimensional cephalometrics have recently been developed for orthodontic diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of MRI in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. SEARCH METHODS: An electronic search was conducted on 20 November 2022 in the following databases: PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane. The search was updated on 30 August 2023. Furthermore, a grey literature search was performed in Google Scholar and Open-Grey. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review included descriptive, observational, cohort studies, cross-sectional, case-control studies, and randomized/non-randomized trials related to the research question. The study excluded studies related to patients with syndromes, chronic diseases, craniofacial anomalies, or bone diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The included studies were quality assessed using the "Joanna Brigg's Critical Appraisal Tool for diagnostic test accuracy". The GRADE approach for non-randomized studies was used for strength-of-evidence analysis. RESULTS: Eight of the 10 included studies compared MRI with either cone beam computed tomography or lateral cephalogram and found a high intra- and inter-rater agreement for landmark identification. The risk of bias was high in four studies, moderate in three, and low in three studies. Homogeneity was lacking among the included studies in terms of MRI imaging parameters and sample characteristics. This should be taken into consideration by future studies where uniformity with respect to these parameters may be considered. CONCLUSIONS: Despite dissimilarity and heterogeneity in the sample population and other methodological aspects, all the included studies concluded that MRI enjoyed considerable intra- and inter-examiner reliability and was comparable to current diagnostic standards in orthodontics. Furthermore, the studies agreed on the innovative potential of MRI in radiation-free diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics in the future. REGISTRATION: CRD number: CRD420223XXXXX.

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).

Evaluation of digital and manual orthodontic diagnostic setups in non-extraction cases using ABO model grading system: an in-vitro study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the outcome quality of manual and digital orthodontic diagnostic setups in non-extraction cases according to the American Board of Orthodontics model grading system and to calculate the laboratory time needed for orthodontic diagnostic setup construction. METHODS: The sample consisted of 60 pretreatment models of non-extraction orthodontic cases with age ranges of 18-30. The study models were duplicated and scanned with 3Shape R-750 scanner. Digital and manual diagnostic setups were constructed according to their respective treatment plans. Digital diagnostic setups were 3D printed and then both manual and digital setups were assessed using the modified American Board of Orthodontics Cast Radiograph evaluation score (ABO CRE), which includes alignment, marginal ridge, buccolingual inclination, occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, interproximal contacts, and overjet. The laboratory time needed for orthodontic setups was measured in minutes. RESULTS: The total ABO CRE score of the digital diagnostic setup group (5.93 ± 2.74) was significantly lower than that of the manual diagnostic setup group (13.08 ± 3.25). The manual diagnostic setup had significantly larger scores in marginal ridge, overjet, overbite, buccolingual inclination, occlusal relationship, and total scores (P < 0.01). However, the digital diagnostic setup had a statistically larger occlusal contacts score than the manual diagnostic setup (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the alignment and the interproximal contacts scores in either group. The manual diagnostic setup needed significantly longer laboratory time (187.8 ± 14.22) than the digital setup (93.08 ± 12.65) (P < 0.01). Comparison between broken teeth was performed by using the chi-square test which found no significant difference between different tooth types. CONCLUSIONS: Digital diagnostic setup is a reliable tool for orthodontic diagnostic setup construction providing excellent quality setup models. Manual diagnostic setup is time consuming with a technique-sensitive laboratory procedure.