Anterior openbite malocclusion in adults.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate stability and satisfaction in adult anterior open bite (AOB) patients at least 9 months post-treatment, as well as patient and practitioner factors that may be associated with stability and satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Practitioners and their adult AOB patients were recruited through the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Data on patient and practitioner characteristics, treatment recommendations and factors were previously collected. Treatment stability was determined by assessing post-treatment intraoral photographs. Patient satisfaction was determined from post-treatment questionnaires. Treatment was categorized into aligners, fixed appliances, temporary anchorage devices, and orthognathic surgery. Extractions were also investigated. Retention type was categorized into vacuum-formed, Hawley-style, or bonded retainers, and regimens were classified as full-time or part-time wear. RESULTS: Retention data collected from 112 patients had a mean post-treatment time of 1.21 years. There were no statistically significant differences in stability between treatment groups. Depending on whether a qualitative index or a millimetric measure was employed, stability ranged from 65% to 89%. Extractions and less initial lower incisor proclination were associated with higher stability in patients treated with fixed appliances only. High satisfaction was reported by patients at retention. There were no clear differences in stability or satisfaction among retention types or regimens. CONCLUSIONS: The stability of adult AOB orthodontic treatment was high, regardless of treatment or retainer modality. Satisfaction in adult AOB patients was high, regardless of retention type or regimen.

The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Adult Anterior Open Bite Study: Patient satisfaction with treatment.

INTRODUCTION: This article evaluates and reports on the satisfaction of adult patients across the United States who received orthodontic treatment for anterior open bite malocclusion. The factors that influence satisfaction are also described. METHODS: Practitioners were recruited from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. On joining the Network, practitioner demographics and information on their practices were acquired. Practitioners enrolled their adult patients in active treatment for anterior open bite. Patient demographics, patient dentofacial characteristics, and details regarding previous and current treatment were collected through questionnaires at enrollment (T1). Pretreatment lateral cephalograms and intraoral frontal photographs were submitted. Treatment performed, and details related to treatment outcome were recorded through questionnaires at the end of active treatment (T2). Posttreatment lateral cephalograms and intraoral frontal photographs were submitted. Patient satisfaction at T2 was assessed using a 5-point Likert-type scale and open-ended responses. Predictive univariate models were developed to evaluate the factors that affect patient satisfaction. Open-ended responses were reviewed for general trends. RESULTS: T2 data were received for 260 patients, and 248 of these patients completed and returned the patient satisfaction questionnaires. High levels of satisfaction were found in this sample of adult patients receiving treatment for anterior open bite malocclusion. Specifically, 96% of the sample reported being very or somewhat satisfied. Only 10 patients (4%) were not satisfied with the treatment provided or an element of the final result. Successful open bite closure, treatment modality, and certain patient characteristics may affect patient satisfaction. However, there was insufficient power to demonstrate statistical significance because of the very low number of dissatisfied patients. Open-ended responses directly associated with patient satisfaction were received from 23 patients (9%). They relayed positive, neutral, and negative feelings about the treatment received and final results. Additional responses regarding the orthodontic treatment in general, but not specifically linked to patient satisfaction, were received from 119 patients (48%). These comments depict an overwhelmingly positive experience. CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients who received orthodontic treatment for anterior open bite malocclusion were generally satisfied with the treatment provided, as well as the final esthetic and functional results.

The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Adult Anterior Open Bite Study: Treatment success.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior open bite (AOB) continues to be a challenging malocclusion for orthodontists to treat and retain long-term. There is no consensus on which treatment modality is most successful. This study reports on the overall success rate of AOB orthodontic treatment in the adult population across the United States, as well as 4 major treatment modalities and other factors that may influence treatment success. METHODS: Practitioners and their adult patients with AOB were recruited through the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Patient dentofacial and demographic characteristics, practitioner demographic and practice characteristics, and factors relating to orthodontic treatment were reported. Treatment success was determined from posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalometric films and intraoral frontal photographs. Treatment was categorized into 4 main groups: aligners, fixed appliances, temporary anchorage devices (TADs), and orthognathic surgery. Extractions were also evaluated. Bivariate and multivariable models were used to investigate the association between treatment success and treatment modality, pretreatment (T1) dentofacial characteristics, patient and practitioner demographics, and practice characteristics, adjusting for clustering of patients within practice. RESULTS: A total of 254 patients, enrolled by 84 practitioners, contributed to T2 data for this study. There were 29 patients in the aligner group, 152 in fixed appliances, 20 in TADs, and 53 in surgery. A total of 49 patients underwent extractions of teeth other than third molars. Ninety-three percent finished treatment with a positive overbite on the T2 lateral cephalogram, and 84% finished with a positive vertical overlap of all incisors. The small number of aligners and TAD patients limited the ability to compare success rates in these groups. Patients treated with orthognathic surgery had a higher rate of success compared with those treated with fixed appliances only. Treatment success was also associated with academic practice setting, T1 mandibular plane angle ≤30°, no to mild T1 crowding, and treatment duration <30 months. CONCLUSIONS: The overall success of orthodontic treatment in adult patients with AOB who participated in this study was very high. Orthognathic surgery was the only treatment modality that exhibited a statistically higher odds of successful outcomes. Some T1 dentofacial characteristics and treatment factors were associated with the successful closure of AOB.

The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Adult Anterior Open Bite Study: Treatment recommendations and their association with patient and practitioner characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: This aim of this paper is to describe and identify the practitioner and patient characteristics that are associated with treatment recommendations for adult anterior open bite patients across the United States. METHODS: Practitioners and patients were recruited within the framework of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Practitioners were asked about their demographic characteristics and their treatment recommendations for these patients. The practitioners also reported on their patients' dentofacial characteristics and provided initial cephalometric scans and intraoral photographs. Patients were asked about their demographic characteristics, previous orthodontic treatment, and goals for treatment. Four main treatment groups were evaluated: aligners, fixed appliances, temporary anchorage devices (TADs), and orthognathic surgery. Extractions were also investigated. Predictive multivariable models were created comparing various categories of treatment as well as extraction/nonextraction decisions. RESULTS: Ninety-one practitioners (mostly orthodontists) and 347 patients were recruited from October 2015 to December 2016. Increased aligner recommendations were associated with white and Asian patients, the presence of tongue habits, and female practitioners. TADs were recommended more often in academic settings. Recommendations for orthognathic surgery were associated with demographic factors, such as availability of insurance coverage and practitioner race/ethnicity, and dentofacial characteristics, such as anteroposterior discrepancies, more severe open bites, and steeper mandibular plane angles. Extraction recommendations were largely associated with severe crowding and incisor proclination. CONCLUSIONS: Both doctor and patient demographic factors, as well as dentofacial characteristics, were significantly associated with treatment recommendations for adult anterior open bite patients.

Effectiveness of a sealant compared with no sealant in preventing enamel demineralization in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances: a prospective clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we tested the efficacy of a tooth sealant polish (Biscover LV; Bisco, Schaumberg, Ill) to prevent enamel demineralization (white spot lesions) for the full duration of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. The trial design was an alternating-tooth split-mouth design. METHODS: Patients starting treatment with bonded appliances in a private practice were enrolled. The 6 maxillary anterior teeth received the test sealant or no sealant. The nonblinded orthodontists visually examined the teeth immediately after debonding and rated the presence and severity of white spot lesions using a 4-point scale. The difference in incidence of white spot lesions on treated and control teeth was tested with multivariate binary logistic regression for repeated measures by using the generalized estimating equations approach. RESULTS: Sixty-five subjects were enrolled, and 3 were lost to follow-up, leaving 62 for analysis. There was a slightly lower incidence of white spot lesions on treated teeth (13.5%; 95% confidence interval, 8.6-18.4) compared with the control teeth (17.7%; 95% confidence interval, 12.4-23.7). This difference was statistically significant in the multivariate model (Wald chi-square, 5.07; df = 1; P = 0.024). The odds ratio was equal to 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.95) that treated teeth would show white spot lesions relative to the control teeth. White spot lesion severity was nearly the same for treated and control teeth (mean ± SD = 1.17 ± 0.47 and 1.20 ± 0.48, respectively; Wald chi-square, 3.03; df = 1; P = 0.082). No serious adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The sealant did not prevent all white spot lesions for the full duration of treatment. The sealant demonstrated a clinically small but statistically significant ability to prevent white spot lesions.

Longitudinal craniofacial growth patterns in patients with orofacial clefts: geometric morphometrics.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate craniofacial developmental patterns in repaired cleft lip and cleft palate (CLP). DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal. SETTING: Center for Craniofacial Disorders, San Juan, Puerto Rico. SAMPLE: Males aged 9 to 17 years: 13 noncleft (NC) Class I occlusion (NCC1); 13 NC Class III malocclusion (NCC3); 12 CLP Class I occlusion (CLPC1); and 15 CLP Class III malocclusion (CLPC3). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Form changes (ages 10, 13, and 16 years), using finite-element scaling analysis. RESULTS: NCC1, 10 to 13 interval: 30% size increase in upper midface (p <.05), mental region (p <.01), mandibular body (p <.05); 13 to 16 interval: 10% to 35% size increase in bimaxillary region and ramus (p <.01). NCC3, 10 to 13 interval: 10% to 40% size increase in posterior cranial base, upper midface, and mandible (p <.05); 13 to 16 interval: 10% to 30% size increase in bimaxillary region (p <.01), especially ramus. CLPC1, 10 to 13 interval: 10% to 15% size increase in posterior cranial base (p <.01), midface (p <.05), and mandibular ramus (p <.05); 13 to 16 interval: 8% to 20% size increase in upper midface (p <.01), lower midface (p <.05), and mandible (p <.05). CLPC3, 10 to 13 interval: no significant changes; 13 to 16 interval: upper midface and cranial base show nonsignificant size decreases, but ramus showed size increase. CONCLUSIONS: Noncleft and CLP Class 1 occlusion groups show similar craniofacial growth patterns. Noncleft Class III groups show excessive cranial and mandibular growth. Class III malocclusion in CLP patients is associated with clinically deficient craniomaxillary growth. Growth guidance may be indicated in children with CLP with unfavorable craniofacial growth patterns.