The effect of increased overjet on the magnitude and reproducibility of smiling in adult females.

The objective of this study was to determine if increased overjet (greater than 6 mm) influences the magnitude and reproducibility of natural smile and maximal smile in Caucasian adult females. Twenty adult females with an increased overjet (6-10 mm) and 20 control adult females (overjet 2-4 mm) with no history of orthodontic treatment volunteered to participate. The mean age in the control group was 30.1 ± 6.4 years and the mean age in the test group was 31.9 ± 10.8 years. Three-dimensional stereophotogrammetric images were captured of each subject for three expressions: at rest, natural smile, and maximal smile. The images were recorded twice on two separate occasions, 6 weeks apart. Images were landmarked and a partial ordinary Procrustes superimposition was used to adjust for the differences in head posture between the same expressions. The magnitude of movement relative to the rest position, averaged over all the landmarks, was calculated and compared between the groups using analysis of variance (linear mixed-effects model); the intra- and inter-session reproducibility of both expressions was assessed. There was greater mean movement, averaged over all the landmarks, in the control group than in the increased overjet group for both natural smile and maximal smile (P = 0.0068). For these expressions, there were no statistically significant differences in reproducibility within sessions (P = 0.5403) or between sessions (P = 0.3665). Increased overjet had a statistically significant effect on the magnitude of smiling but did not influence the reproducibility of natural or maximal smile relative to controls.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of:(1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and(2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (29th January 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 29th January 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to 29th January 2007). A search of the internet was also undertaken. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

Magnitude and reproducibility of forces generated by clinicians during laceback placement.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the magnitude and reproducibility of forces generated by clinicians during laceback placement using a force-measuring typodont. SETTING: An in vitro investigation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An in vitro typodont model was developed, which incorporated strain gauges attached to a personal computer to allow measurement of the force generated on application of lacebacks. Ten operators were instructed to place lacebacks five times, on two separate occasions (T1 and T2). Inter-operator and intra-operator forces produced at T1 and T2 were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Forces generated by laceback placement. RESULTS: The forces generated by clinicians ranged from 0 to 11.1 N. There were significant differences in the mean forces generated by the different operators (P < 0.001), with differences between time points not being consistent across all operators (P < 0.001). Some operators were more consistent than others in the forces generated. CONCLUSION: In vitro, there was a large inter-operator variation in the forces produced during laceback placement. With the in vitro model used in this study, few operators applied similar forces when placing lacebacks on two separate occasions.

Orthodontic treatment for deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children.

BACKGROUND: Correction of the type of dental problem where the bite is deep and the upper front teeth are retroclined (Class II division 2 malocclusion) may be carried out using different types of orthodontic treatment. However, in severe cases, surgery to the jaws in combination with orthodontics may be required. In growing children, treatment may sometimes be carried out using special upper and lower dental braces (functional appliances) that can be removed from the mouth. In many cases this treatment does not involve taking out any permanent teeth. Often, however, further treatment is needed with fixed braces to get the best result. In other cases, treatment aims to move the upper first permanent molars backwards to provide space for the correction of the front teeth. This may be carried out by applying a force to the teeth and jaws from the back of the head using a head brace (headgear) and transmitting this force to a part of a fixed or removable dental brace. This treatment may or may not involve the removal of permanent teeth. In some cases, neither functional appliances nor headgear are required and treatment may be carried out without extraction of any permanent teeth. Instead of using a headgear, in certain cases, the back teeth are held back in other ways such as with an arch across or in contact with the front of the roof of the mouth which links two bands glued to the back teeth. Often in these cases, two permanent teeth are taken out from the middle of the upper arch (one on each side) to provide room to correct the upper front teeth. It is important for orthodontists to find out whether orthodontic treatment only, carried out without the removal of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion produces a result which is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment only involving extraction of permanent teeth. OBJECTIVES: To establish whether orthodontic treatment, carried out without the removal of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion, produces a result which is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment involving removal of permanent teeth. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. The handsearching of the main international orthodontic journals was updated to April 2006. There were no restrictions with regard to publication status or language of publication. International researchers, likely to be involved in Class II division 2 clinical trials, were contacted to identify any unpublished or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of orthodontic treatments to correct deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs or CCTs were identified that assessed the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusion in children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to provide any evidence-based guidance to recommend or discourage any type of orthodontic treatment to correct Class II division 2 malocclusion in children.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of:(1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and(2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (July 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2005) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2005). A search of the internet was also undertaken. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.

BACKGROUND: Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic (dental) braces. Without a phase of retention there is a tendency for the teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse almost every patient who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's (OHG) Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching of orthodontic journals was undertaken in keeping with the Cochrane OHG search programme. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs on children and adults, who have had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken, following orthodontic treatment with braces to prevent relapse. The outcomes were: how well the teeth were stabilised, survival of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. As no two studies compared the same retention strategies (interventions) it was not possible to combine the results of any studies. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. These trials all compared different interventions: circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy (CSF) combined with full-time removable retainer versus a full-time removable retainer alone; CSF combined with a nights-only removable retainer versus a nights-only removable retainer alone; removable Hawley retainer versus a clear overlay retainer; multistrand wire retainer versus a ribbon-reinforced resin bonded retainer; and three types of fixed retainers versus a removable retainer. There was weak unreliable evidence, based on data from one trial, that there was a statistically significant increase in stability in both the mandibular (lower) (P < 0.001) and maxillary (upper) anterior segments (P < 0.001) when the CSF was used, compared with when it was not used. There was also weak, unreliable evidence that teeth settle quicker with a Hawley retainer than with a clear overlay retainer after 3 months. The quality of the trial reports was generally poor. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient research data on which to base our clinical practice on retention at present. There is an urgent need for high quality randomised controlled trials in this crucial area of orthodontic practice.

Bridging and dimensions of sella turcica in subjects treated by surgical-orthodontic means or orthodontics only.

The aim of the study was to compare the incidence of sella turcica bridging and sella turcica dimensions in 150 Caucasian subjects who had combined surgical-orthodontic correction of their malocclusion with a randomly selected group of 150 Caucasian subjects who were treated contemporaneously by orthodontic means only. Pretreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs were scanned and analyzed. A sella turcica bridge was identified as a continuous band of bony tissue extending from the anterior cranial fossa to the posterior cranial fossa. The dimensions of the sella turcica were measured. In the group treated by combined surgical-orthodontic means, the incidence of bridging was 16.7%, whereas it was 7.3% in the orthodontics-only group (P = .012). Significant increases in the mean surface area (P = .02) and mean perimeter of the sella turcica (P = .01) were found for the combined surgical-orthodontic group compared with the orthodontics-only group. The mean interclinoid distance was significantly smaller in the surgical-orthodontic group (P = .02). These findings appear to indicate the greater likelihood of sella turcica bridging and abnormal sella turcica dimensions in subjects treated by combined surgical-orthodontic means rather than by orthodontics only.

Fluorides, orthodontics and demineralization: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing white spot lesion (WSL) demineralization during orthodontic treatment and compare all modes of fluoride delivery. DATA SOURCES: The search strategy for the review was carried out according to the standard Cochrane systematic review methodology. The following databases were searched for RCTs or CCTs: Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied when considering studies to be included. Authors of trials were contacted for further data. DATA SELECTION: The primary outcome of the review was the presence or absence of WSL by patient at the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included any quantitative assessment of enamel mineral loss or lesion depth. DATA EXTRACTION: Six reviewers independently, in duplicate, extracted data, including an assessment of the methodological quality of each trial. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen trials provided data for this review, although none fulfilled all the methodological quality assessment criteria. One study found that a daily NaF mouthrinse reduced the severity of demineralization surrounding an orthodontic appliance (lesion depth difference -70.0 microm; 95% CI -118.2 to -21.8 microm). One study found that use of a glass ionomer cement (GIC) for bracket bonding reduced the prevalence of WSL (Peto OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.15-0.84) compared with a composite resin. None of the studies fulfilled all of the methodological quality assessment criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that the use of a daily NaF mouthrinse or a GIC for bonding brackets might reduce the occurrence and severity of WSL during orthodontic treatment. More high quality, clinical research is required into the different modes of delivering fluoride to the orthodontic patient.

Methods of assessment of cleft-related facial deformity: a review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the stimulus media, measurements and scoring system, rater's characteristics, and facial region used in assessment of the appearance of cleft-related deformity. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted using MedLine from January 1966 to June 2003. Key orthodontic journals and The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal were hand searched as well. RESULTS: Most studies used a static two-dimensional means of assessment. Direct clinical assessment, three-dimensional media, or both have been used to a lesser extent. Only one study utilized all three assessment media. Three studies, however, attempted to compare the direct clinical assessment with that obtained using two-dimensional media. Most of the studies demonstrated that appearance of the cleft-related deformity could be measured by a variety of judges. The reliability and validity of the three different media as methods of assessment have received limited attention. The facial area assessed has varied from the full face, nasolabial area, or specific features of the lip or nose. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in the study design related to assessment of cleft-related deformity. An internationally agreed objective method of assessment for this facial deformity is required. A three-dimensional, rather than a two-dimensional, means of assessment should be adopted.

Chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer for band cementation? An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the mean retentive strength, predominant site of band failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth at deband and survival time of orthodontic micro-etched bands cemented with chlorhexidine-modified (CHXGIC) or conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC). DESIGN: In vitro study. SETTING: Dental Materials Laboratory. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred-and-twenty intact, caries-free third molars were collected from patients attending for third molar surgery. These were stored for 3 months in distilled water and decontaminated in 0.5% chloramine. To assess retentive strength, 80 teeth were randomly selected and 40 were banded with each cement. Testing was undertaken using a Nene M3000 testing machine at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Following debanding, the predominant site of failure was recorded as cement-enamel or cement-band interface. The amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface following deband was assessed and coded. Survival time for another 40 banded specimens, 20 cemented with each cement, was assessed following application of mechanical stress in a ball mill. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Retentive strength, predominant site of failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface, survival time. RESULTS: Mean retentive strength for bands cemented with CHXGIC (0.32 MPa, SD 0.09) or GIC (0.28 MPa, SD 0.07) did not differ significantly (p=0.05). All bands failed at the enamel-cement interface. There was no significant difference in the amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface after deband for each cement type (p=0.23). The mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC was 7.0 and 6.4 hours, respectively (p=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in mean retentive strength, amount of cement remaining on the tooth after deband or mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC. Bands cemented with either cement failed predominantly at the enamel-cement interface. The results suggest that CHXGIC may have comparable clinical performance to GIC for band cementation.

Fluorides for the prevention of white spots on teeth during fixed brace treatment.

BACKGROUND: White spots can appear on teeth during fixed brace treatment because of early decay around the brace attachments. Fluoride is effective at reducing decay in susceptible individuals and is routinely prescribed in various different forms to patients during orthodontic treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing white spots during orthodontic treatment and to compare the different modes of delivery of fluoride. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22 August 2002); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2002); MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2003); EMBASE (January 1980 to week July 2003). Authors of trials were contacted for further data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: a randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trial, involving the use of a fluoride-containing product compared with no use or use of a non-fluoride control and enamel demineralisation was assessed during or after orthodontic treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Six reviewers independently, in duplicate, extracted data. The primary outcome was the difference in the presence or absence of white spots between experimental and control patients for parallel design studies, and between experimental and control quadrants, for split-mouth design studies. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken for the items assessed for quality and publication bias. MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome of the review was the presence or absence of white spots by patient at the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included any quantitative assessment of enamel mineral loss or lesion depth. Other outcomes such as differences in size and severity of white spots, any patient based outcomes, such as perception of white spots could not be included because there were insufficient data. Fifteen trials, with 723 participants, provided data for this review. None of the studies fulfilled all of the methodological quality assessment criteria. There is some evidence that a daily sodium fluoride mouthrinse reduces the severity of enamel decay surrounding a fixed brace (weighted mean difference for lesion depth -70.0; 95% CI -118.2 to -21.8) and that use of a glass ionomer cement for bracket bonding reduces the prevalence (Peto OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.84) and severity of white spots (weighted mean difference for mineral loss -645 vol%.microm; 95% CI -915 to -375) compared with composite resins. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that the use of topical fluoride or fluoride-containing bonding materials during orthodontic treatment reduces the occurrence and severity of white spot lesions, however there is little evidence as to which method or combination of methods to deliver the fluoride is the most effective. Based on current best practice in other areas of dentistry, for which there is evidence, we recommend that patients with fixed braces rinse daily with a 0.05% sodium fluoride mouthrinse. More high quality, clinical research is required into the different modes of delivering fluoride to the orthodontic patient.

Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: part I.

Part I of this paper describes the background, general concepts, available techniques and the clinical applications of recording external craniofacial morphology in three dimensions. Part II explores the different 3D techniques of imaging the dental arches, and their possible uses in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment.

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.

BACKGROUND: Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after orthodontic (dental) braces. Without a phase of retention there is a tendency for the teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse almost every patient who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several journals were handsearched. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: December 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs on children and adults, who have had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken, following orthodontic treatment with braces to prevent relapse. The outcomes are: how well the teeth are stabilised, survival of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. As no two studies compared the same retention strategies (interventions) it was not possible to combine the results of any studies. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. These trials all compared different interventions: circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy (CSF) combined with full-time removable retainer versus a full-time removable retainer alone; circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy (CSF) combined with a nights-only removable retainer versus a nights-only removable retainer alone; removable Hawley retainer versus a clear overlay retainer; and three types of fixed retainers versus a removable retainer. There was weak unreliable evidence, based on data from one trial, that there was a statistically significant increase in stability in both the mandibular (p < 0.001) and maxillary anterior segments (p < 0.001) when the CSF was used, compared with when it was not used. There was also weak, unreliable evidence that teeth settle quicker with a Hawley retainer than with a clear overlay retainer after 3 months. The quality of the trial reports was generally poor. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient research data on which to base our clinical practice on retention at present. There is an urgent need for high quality randomised controlled trials in this crucial area of orthodontic practice.

Six and 12 months' evaluation of a self-etching primer versus two-stage etch and prime for orthodontic bonding: a randomized clinical trial.

The aim of the study was to compare the mean clinical chair-side time required for bracket bonding and the mean bond failure rate at 6 and 12 months of stainless steel brackets with a micro-etched base bonded with a light-cured composite using a self-etching primer (SEP) or a two-stage etch and prime system.Fifty-one subjects who required upper and/or lower pre-adjusted edgewise fixed appliances were recruited in a single centre randomized clinical trial. The trial was a single-blind design, involving a within-patient comparison of the two bonding systems with each patient randomly allocated the two bonding systems for each side of the mouth (all teeth except molars). The two bonding techniques used were standardized throughout the trial and all bracket bonding was performed by a single operator. Bonding time was recorded using a digital timer. The bond failure rate of a strictly paired sample was recorded at 6 and 12 months for each patient. The mean bracket bonding time per patient with the SEP was significantly less than that with the two-stage bonding system (mean difference 24.9 seconds; 95 per cent confidence interval 22.1-27.7 seconds; paired t-test P < 0.001). The overall bond failure rates at 6 and 12 months with the SEP were 0.8 and 1.6 per cent, respectively, and for the two-stage etch and prime 1.1 and 3.1 per cent, respectively. At 6 months, the mean bond failure rate per patient with the SEP was 0.81 per cent and with the two-stage bonding system 0.96 per cent (P = 0.87; Wilcoxon signed rank test). At 12 months, the mean bond failure rate with the SEP per patient was 1.54 per cent and with the two-stage bonding system 2.78 per cent (P = 0.33; Wilcoxon signed rank test). The mean bracket bonding time with the SEP per patient was significantly shorter than that of the two-stage bonding system (P < 0.001). The difference between the overall bond failure rate and the mean bond failure rate per patient for the two bonding systems was not statistically nor clinically significant at 6 and 12 months (P = 1.00 and P = 0.125, respectively; McNemar's test).

Effect of fluoride exposure on cariostatic potential of orthodontic bonding agents: an in vitro evaluation.

AIMS: The aims of this in vitro study were to compare the cariostatic potential of a resin modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Ortho LC) to that of a resin control (Transbond) for bracket bonding and to compare the effect of extrinsic fluoride application on the cariostatic potential of each material. SETTING: Ex vivo study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Orthodontic brackets were bonded to 40 extracted premolars, 20 with Fuji Ortho LC and 20 with Transbond. The teeth were subjected to pH cycling, pH 4.55, and pH 6.8, over a 30-day period. Ten teeth bonded with each material were immersed in a 1000 ppm fluoride solution for 2 minutes each day. Fluoride release was measured throughout the study from all teeth. After 30 days, the teeth were assessed visually for signs of enamel decalcification. RESULTS: Significant differences in decalcification existed macroscopically between all four groups of teeth, with the exception of those bonded with Fuji Ortho LC alone compared with Transbond alone (P = 0.22), and Fuji Ortho LC alone compared with Transbond with added fluoride (P = 0.3). Fluoride release from Fuji Ortho LC alone fell to minimal values, but with the addition of extrinsic fluoride the levels fell initially and then followed an upward trend. There was minimal fluoride release, from Transbond alone, but with daily addition of extrinsic fluoride, subsequent fluoride release was increased. Significant differences existed in the amount of fluoride released between all groups, except comparing Fuji Ortho LC alone and Transbond with added fluoride. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study have indicated that with an in vitro tooth-bracket model, the creation of white spot inhibition could best be achieved by the use of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement, supplemented with fluoride exposure. The least protection was afforded by the composite control. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement alone and the composite with added fluoride demonstrated equivalent protection.

An appraisal of three methods of rating facial deformity in patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reliability of clinical assessment, two-dimensional color transparencies and three-dimensional imaging for evaluating the residual facial deformity in patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and compare the ratings of facial deformity made by health care professionals with those made by lay assessors. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS Thirty-one randomly selected subjects aged 10 to 30 years with repaired complete UCLP. Five professionals and five laypersons evaluated each subject's residual cleft-related facial deformity using clinical assessment, two-dimensional color transparencies, and three-dimensional images. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The facial deformity of the full face, lip, nose, and midface were scored using a 5-point ordinal scale on two occasions with a 1-month interval. Intra- and interexaminer agreements were calculated from weighted kappa statistics. Bootstrap permutation tests were used to detect any differences in agreement. RESULTS: Assessment of facial deformity showed good reproducibility across the three assessment media (kappa = 0.42 to 0.83, SE 0.08). Clinical assessment among lay assessors, however, was poor to moderate (kappa = 0.16 to 0.58, SE 0.07). For all assessors, there was no difference in the two nonclinical media relative to the standard clinical assessment for assessments of the full face (p =.377). For assessments of the lip or nose, transparency scores were in greater agreement with the clinical scores than were the three-dimensional assessment scores (p =.017 and.011, respectively). For rating the midface, the three-dimensional scores were in greater agreement with the clinical scores than were the color transparencies scores (p =.047). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with lay assessors, clinical assessment among professionals was more reproducible. This was not so for nonclinical media. The equivalence of using the color transparencies and three-dimensional media relative to the clinical assessment depends on the region of the face being considered.

Laboratory evaluation of a self-etching primer for orthodontic bonding.

The aim of the present study was to compare the mean bonding time, mean shear bond strength and mean survival time of stainless steel brackets with a micro-etched base bonded with a light-cure composite using a self-etching primer (SEP) or a conventional two-stage etch and prime system. Brackets were bonded to 30 premolars with each bonding system. The bonding time was recorded for each specimen using a stopwatch. After storage in a humidor at 37 degrees C for 24 hours, the shear debonding force was measured at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Another 10 premolars were bonded with each bonding system and used to assess survival time following the application of mechanical stress in a ball mill for 100 hours. The mean bonding time of the SEP group (111.5 seconds) was significantly less than that of the two-stage bonding group (170.5 seconds) [mean difference 59 seconds; 95 per cent confidence interval (CI) 51.8-66.2 seconds, two sample t-test P < 0.001]. The mean shear bond strength of the SEP group (2.88 MPa) was significantly less than that of the two-stage bonding group (3.71 MPa) (mean difference 0.83 MPa; 95 per cent CI 0.23-1.42 MPa; two sample t-test P = 0.008). For the survival study, only one of the two-stage bonding group failed within 1 hour in the ball mill. The SEP significantly reduced bracket bonding time. The mean shear bond strength of the brackets bonded with the SEP was significantly less than those bonded with a conventional two-stage etch and prime system. There was no difference in survival time of brackets bonded by each bonding system.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets.

BACKGROUND: Bonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment which increases operator chairside time and lengthens treatment time. A prolonged treatment is likely to increase the oral health risks of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances one of which is irreversible enamel decalcification. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Date of most recent searches: August 2002 (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2002). SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing two different adhesive groups. Participants were patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. The interventions were adhesives that bonded stainless steel brackets to all teeth except the molars. The primary outcome was debond or bracket failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were recorded on decalcification as a secondary outcome, if present. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted in duplicate by pairs of reviewers (Nicky Mandall (NM) and Rye Mattick (CRM); Declan Millett (DTM) and Joy Hickman (JH2)). Since the data were not presented in a form that was amenable to meta-analysis, the results of the review are presented in narrative form only. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. A chemical cured composite was compared with a light cure composite (one trial), a conventional glass ionomer cement (one trial) and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (one trial). The quality of the trial reports was generally poor. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this review, however, suggestions are made for methods of improving future research involving orthodontic adhesives.

Are facial expressions reproducible?

OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent of reproducibility of five facial expressions. DESIGN: Thirty healthy Caucasian volunteers (15 males, 15 females) aged 21 to 30 years had 20 landmarks highlighted on the face with a fine eyeliner pencil. Subjects were asked to perform a sequence of five facial expressions that were captured by a three-dimensional camera system. Each expression was repeated after 15 minutes to investigate intrasession expression reproducibility. To investigate intersession expression reproducibility, each subject returned 2 weeks after the first session. A single operator identified 3-dimensional coordinate values of each landmark. A partial ordinary procrustes analysis was used to adjust for differences in head posture between similar expressions. Statistical analysis was undertaken using analysis of variance (linear mixed effects model). RESULTS: Intrasession expression reproducibility was least between cheek puffs (1.12 mm) and greatest between rest positions (0.74 mm). The reproducibility of individual landmarks was expression specific. Except for the lip purse, the reproducibility of facial expressions was not statistically different within each of the two sessions. Rest position was most reproducible, followed by lip purse, maximal smile, natural smile, and cheek puff. Subjects did not perform expressions with the same degree of symmetry on each occasion. Female subjects demonstrated significantly better reproducibility with regard to the maximal smile than males (p =.036). CONCLUSIONS: Under standardized conditions, intrasession expression reproducibility was high. Variation in expression reproducibility between sessions was minimal. The extent of reproducibility is expression specific. Differences in expression reproducibility exist between males and females.