"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.

Which anchorage device is the best during retraction of anterior teeth? An overview of systematic reviews.

Objective: To evaluate the available evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of different types of anchorage devices. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of different electronic databases was conducted for systematic reviews investigating different anchorage methods published up to April 15, 2021. Any ongoing systematic reviews were searched using PROSPERO, and a grey literature search was undertaken using Google Scholar and OpenGrey. No language restriction was applied. Screening, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Information was categorized and narratively synthesized for the key findings from moderate- and high-quality reviews. Results: Fourteen systematic reviews were included (11 were of moderate/high quality). Skeletal anchorage with miniscrews was associated with less anchorage loss (and sometimes with anchorage gain). Similarly, skeletal anchorage was more effective in retracting anterior teeth and intruding incisors and molars, resulting in minor vertical skeletal changes and improvements in the soft tissue profile. However, insufficient evidence was obtained for the preference of any anchorage method in terms of the duration of treatment, number of appointments, quality of treatment, patient perception, or adverse effects. The effectiveness of skeletal anchorage can be enhanced when: directly loaded, used in the mandible rather than the maxilla, used buccally rather than palatally, using dual rather than single miniscrews, used for en-masse retraction, and in adults. Conclusions: The level of evidence regarding anchorage effectiveness is moderate. Nevertheless, compared to conventional anchorage, skeletal anchorage can be used with more anchorage preservation. Further high-quality randomized clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

Clinical effectiveness of clear aligner treatment compared to fixed appliance treatment: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the available evidence regarding clinical effectiveness of clear aligner treatment (CAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted for systematic reviews investigating effectiveness of CAT published up to July 15, 2021. This was accomplished using different electronic databases. No language restriction was applied. Screening, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by two authors independently. Information was categorized and narratively synthesized for the key findings from moderate and high-quality reviews. RESULTS: A total of 361 potentially eligible reviews were identified. After excluding the non-relevant/low-quality reviews, 18 systematic reviews were included. CAT was found to be effective for mild to moderate malocclusions, and was associated with inferior outcomes when treating severe cases or with achieving specific tooth movements. There were conflicting results regarding treatment duration; however, CAT may be associated with shorter treatment in mild to moderate cases. Relapse was greater with CAT, while periodontal health was better. The risk of root resorption tended to be lower with CAT. Regarding pain, the results were unclear, although CAT was found to be more comfortable and associated with a reduced impact on eating and chewing. CONCLUSIONS: The level of evidence regarding CAT is moderate; hence, further high-quality randomized clinical trials are required. Evidence supports use of aligners as an alternate to fixed appliances in patients with mild-to-moderate malocclusion but not in severe cases. Advancement in technology could enhance the accuracy of CAT in delivering planned outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CAT can be used effectively for selected cases with mild to moderate malocclusion. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021246855.

Development of patient information leaflets for fixed, removable, and functional appliances for Arabic-speaking orthodontic patients.

OBJECTIVE: To develop Orthodontic Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) in Arabic. MATERIAL & METHOD: This study included five phases starting with Arabic translation of existing British Orthodontic Society leaflets; initial face validation with three orthodontists; content validation with ten orthodontists; final face validation with ten orthodontists, five postgraduate students, and ten patients; and re-translation to English prior to comparing the new documents with the original PILs to verify that all the necessary information were included. The content validity index (CVI) assessed item level (I-CVI) and scale level (S-CVI). RESULTS: The three Arabic PILs were face validated with inclusion of mini-screws, rapid maxillary expansion, and interproximal reduction. Content validity was perfect with no item I-CVI < 0.80. The S-CVI/Ave for PIL Fixed Appliances = 0.98, PIL Removable Appliances = 0.98 and PIL Functional Appliances = 0.97. In the final face validation, the three leaflets received 100% agreement from all observers for consistency of leaflet format and style, clarity, readability and use of adequate phrases. Finally, the leaflets were re-translated and the information was checked by native English speakers to ensure the completeness of information. There were no discrepancies and face validity was excellent. CONCLUSION: Valid PILs for Arabic-speaking patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed, removable, and functional appliances have been developed.

Orthodontic treatment and root resorption: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Root resorption can be considered the most unfortunate complication of orthodontic treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the available evidence regarding orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR). SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted for the systematic reviews investigating OIIRR published up to 24 May 2020. This was accomplished using electronic databases: MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), PubMed, and Web of Science. Any ongoing systematic reviews were searched using Prospero and a grey literature search was undertaken using Google Scholar and OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu/). No language restriction was applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only studies investigating OIIRR were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening, quality assessment [using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews)], and data extraction were performed by two authors independently. Information was categorized and narratively synthesized for the key findings from moderate and high-quality reviews. RESULTS: A total of 2033 potentially eligible studies were identified. After excluding the non-relevant studies, 28 systematic reviews were included. Of which, 20 systematic reviews (71.5%) were of moderate and high-quality level of evidence. The incidence and severity of OIIRR increase with the fixed appliance, especially with heavy force, intrusion, torqueing movements, increased treatment duration, and treatment with extractions or with long apical displacement (particularly for maxillary incisors). There was insufficient evidence regarding most other treatment- and patient-related factors on OIIRR. Following all precautionary measures, pausing treatment and regular monitoring benefits patients with OIIRR. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There is a limited number of high-quality studies in terms of OIIRR. The influence of fixed appliance on root resorption was noted; however, the cause and effect relationship between OIIRR and orthodontic biomechanics has not been confirmed. Avoiding heavy, continuous forces and a greater amount of apical displacement over a long duration of treatment is recommended. Precautionary measures should be carefully considered when treating patients with a high risk of OIIRR. REGISTRATION: CRD42020166629.

The impact of labial fixed appliance orthodontic treatment on patient expectation, experience, and satisfaction: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Patient perception with fixed appliance orthodontic treatment is important to improve oral health-related quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of labial fixed appliance orthodontic care on patient perception before, during, and after the treatment. SEARCH METHODS: Relevant systematic reviews investigating patient perception with fixed appliance orthodontic treatment were identified by searching electronic databases: MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 31 December 2018), EMBASE (1974 to 31 December 2018), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database; 1985 to November 2018), PubMed (inception to 31 December 2018), Web of Science (1900 to 2018), and PsychINFO (1806 to 31 December 2018). Ongoing systematic reviews were searched using Prospero and a grey literature search was undertaken using Google Scholar and OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu/). No language restriction was applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only studies investigating patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening, quality assessment [using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews)], and data extraction were performed by two authors independently. Information was categorized and narratively synthesized for the key findings. RESULTS: A total of 163 articles investigating patient expectation, experience, and satisfaction with conventional ligation labial fixed orthodontic appliances were obtained. Of these, 152 observational or interventional studies were excluded, resulting in 11 eligible systematic reviews. Two were excluded as earlier reports of a Cochrane review. The quality of the reviews was variable (critically low, low, and moderate). The findings were as follows: aesthetics represents a primary motive for orthodontic treatment; a temporary deterioration in the quality of life occurs during the initial phases of treatment; gender and ethnicity factors do not have an impact on patient perception of treatment; and a positive relationship between orthodontist-patient-parent is important to achieve patient compliance and satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high-quality studies in terms of systematic reviews and meta-analyses for assessing patient perception with fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. The aesthetic impact of malocclusion is the main motive for seeking orthodontic treatment. Quality of life reduces during the initial stages of orthodontic treatment but improves in the later stages of treatment. Assessment before, during, and after orthodontic treatment is necessary to comprehensively assess patient perception at all stages of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019122653. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None to declare.

Variation in bracket slot sizes, ligation methods and prescriptions: UK national survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study designed to investigate the use of fixed bracket slot sizes, ligation method and prescriptions in the UK using an online survey/questionnaire comprised of seven questions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The questionnaire link along with an explanation of its nature was circulated via the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) to all 978-email addresses of the Consultant Orthodontists Group (COG) and Orthodontic Specialists Group (OSG) (registered on the UK Specialist List for Orthodontics) members inviting them to participate. Two email reminders were sent to increase the response rate. Chi2 analyses determined the statistical differences in the use of bracket slots and prescriptions according to the regions and years of experience. RESULTS: The respondents represented 31.2% of the BOS specialist orthodontic members. Most of the respondents practised in the South of England with experience between 11-30years. The vast majority of the respondents routinely used brackets with the multibracket appliance treatment (MBT) prescription (81.6%) and 0.022-inch slot size (98.7%), which was statistically significantly higher in all geographical regions and experience levels (P<0.001). The majority of the respondents reported either 100% or 90% use of conventional brackets when compared to self-ligating brackets. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of UK specialist orthodontists use conventional ligating MBT prescription brackets with the 0.022-inch slot size. This was mainly because they perceive that this combination provides better treatment outcomes, whilst many respondents also indicated that they were taught and trained using this combination and that there was not enough evidence to support a change in their clinical practice.

A 3D cephalometric protocol for the accurate quantification of the craniofacial symmetry and facial growth.

BACKGROUND: Cephalometric analysis is used to evaluate facial growth, to study the anatomical relationships within the face. Cephalometric assessment is based on 2D radiographic images, either the sagittal or coronal planes and is an inherently inaccurate methodology. The wide availability of 3D imaging techniques, such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging make routine 3D analysis of facial morphology feasible. 3D cephalometry may not only provide a more accurate quantification of the craniofacial morphology and longitudinal growth, but also the differentiation of subtle changes in occlusion. However, a reliable protocol for the computation of craniofacial symmetry and quantification of craniofacial morphology is still a topic of extensive research. Here, a protocol for 3D cephalometric analysis for both the identification of the natural head position (NHP) and the accurate quantification of facial growth and facial asymmetry is proposed and evaluated. A phantom study was conducted to assess the performance of the protocol and to quantify the ability to repeatedly and reliably align skulls with the NHP and quantify the degree of accuracy with which facial growth and facial asymmetry can be measured. RESULTS: The results obtained show that the protocol allows consistent alignment with the NHP, with an overall average error (and standard deviation) of just 0.17 (9.10e-6) mm, with variations of 0.21 (2.77e-17) mm in the frontonasal suture and 0.30 (5.55e-17) mm in the most prominent point in the chin. The average errors associated with simulated facial growth ranged from 1.83 to 3.75% for 2 years' growth and from - 9.57 to 14.69% for 4 years, while the error in the quantification of facial asymmetry ranged from - 11.38 to 9.31%. CONCLUSIONS: The protocol for 3D skull alignment produces accurate and landmark free estimation of the true symmetry of the head. It allows a reliable alignment of the skull in the NHP independently of user-defined landmarks, as well as an accurate quantification of facial growth and asymmetry.

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.

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.

Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances.

BACKGROUND: Initial arch wires are the first arch wires to be inserted into the fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment and are used mainly for the alignment of teeth by correcting crowding and rotations. With a number of different types of orthodontic arch wires available for initial tooth alignment, it is important to understand which wire is most efficient, as well as which wires cause least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. This is an update of the review entitledInitial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, which was first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of initial arch wires for the alignment of teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, in terms of the rate of tooth alignment, amount of root resorption accompanying tooth movement, and intensity of pain experienced by patients during the initial alignment stage of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 October 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 October 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 5 October 2017. The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initial arch wires to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. We included only studies involving participants with upper or lower, or both, full arch fixed orthodontic appliances. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were responsible for study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors. We contacted corresponding authors of included studies to obtain missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we found three new RCTs (228 participants), bringing the total to 12 RCTs with 799 participants. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias, and three to be at low risk of bias; six were unclear. None of the studies reported the adverse outcome of root resorption. The review assessed six comparisons.1. Multistrand stainless steel versus superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) arch wires. There were five studies in this group and it was appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of two of them. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and superelastic NiTi arch wires (mean difference (MD) -7.5 mm per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.27 to 11.27; 1 study, 48 participants; low-quality evidence). The findings for pain at day 1 as measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale suggested that there was no meaningful difference between the interventions (MD -2.68 mm, 95% CI -6.75 to 1.38; 2 studies, 127 participants; moderate-quality evidence).2. Multistrand stainless steel versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from the studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Pain was not measured.3. Conventional NiTi versus superelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is any difference between conventional and superelastic NiTi arch wires with regard to either alignment or pain (low- to very low-quality evidence).4. Conventional NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment between conventional and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Pain was not measured.5. Single-strand superelastic NiTi versus coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wires. There was only one study (24 participants) in this group. There is moderate-quality evidence that coaxial superelastic NiTi can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks (MD -6.76 mm, 95% CI -7.98 to -5.55). Pain was not measured.6. Superelastic NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment or pain between superelastic and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence shows that arch wires of coaxial superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks than arch wires made of single-strand superelastic NiTi. Moderate-quality evidence also suggests there may be no difference in pain at day 1 between multistrand stainless steel arch wires and superelastic NiTi arch wires. Other than these findings, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether any particular arch wire material is superior to any other in terms of alignment rate, time to alignment, pain and root resorption.

Soft tissue changes: a comparison between changes caused by the construction bite and by successful treatment with a modified Twin-block appliance.

Background/objectives: Functional appliances are commonly used to correct Class II malocclusion. This study aimed to compare the facial soft tissue changes in Caucasians between pre-treatment and with the construction bite versus pre-treatment and completion of treatment with a modified Twin-block appliance (MTBA). Materials and methods: Fifty-eight Caucasian subjects with Class II division 1 malocclusion had 3D stereophotogrammetric images captured pre-treatment (T1), with the construction bite (T2), and on completion of MTBA treatment (T3). Twenty-six landmarks were located on each image and 10% were re-landmarked 1 month later. Soft-tissue linear and volumetric changes (T1-T2 and T1-T3) were analyzed using linear mixed effect models (SAS® Version 9.4, www.sas.com). Results: Forty-seven subjects [mean age 13.2 (SD 1.7) years] completed treatment [mean duration 9.8 (SD 3.8) months]. Differences between the changes from T1 to T2 versus T1 to T3 for upper facial and upper lip landmarks were insignificant (all P > 0.05) except for nasion, orbitale right, pronasale, and subnasale. For the same comparisons, lower lip and chin landmarks changed significantly (all P < 0.05) as did facial soft tissue volume (P< 0.0001). Limitations: There was no control group. Conclusion: The facial soft tissue changes from pre-treatment to with the construction bite were considerably more than those from pre-treatment to completion of treatment with a MTBA. Implication: With MTBA treatment, the soft tissue changes from pre-treatment to with the construction bite in situ, overestimate those from pre- to post-treatment.

Three questionnaires to assess the perception of fixed orthodontic therapy before, during and after treatment: validity and reliability.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity and reliability of a series of three questionnaires for the quantification of patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study was carried out at the University of Dundee with content and face validity being assessed using proformas. Initially ten experts (Orthodontic Specialists) assessed content validity with 11 professionals (seven Orthodontic Specialists and four Postgraduates) and 20 patients assessing face validity. Content validity was determined according to the values of item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale-level CVI (S-CVI/Ave), while specially designed feedback forms were used for face validation. Internal consistency determined the reliability of the questionnaires according to the value of Cronbach alpha correlation coefficient test. The three questionnaires were then modified according to the recommendations of professionals and patients with seven experts reassessing content validity and ten newly selected patients assessing face validity. RESULTS: The first round of content validity revealed that around half of the items in the questionnaires were not valid. Therefore, the questionnaires were not valid as a whole (S-CVI/Ave = 0.60). After modifying the questionnaires and removing the non-valid items, the new versions of the Pre-treatment, Orthodontic Experience, and Post-treatment Questionnaires showed high levels of face validity, content validity (S-CVI/Ave: 0.99, 0.97, and 0.99, respectively) and good levels of internal consistency (α = 0.86, 0.78, and 0.88, respectively). LIMITATION: The patient sample was collected from a single university clinic and from one city within the UK and this could affect the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSION: Three content valid and reliable questionnaires have been developed and validated for the evaluation of patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. IMPLICATIONS: Unlike other tools that assess oral health-related quality of life, this series of three questionnaires assess the perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment before, during and after treatment.

The validity and reliability of an automated method of scoring dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate using the modified Huddart-Bodenham scoring system.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an automated software tool for the assessment of dental arch relationships using the modified Huddart and Bodenham (MHB) index. DESIGN: Cohort of 43 models of subjects aged 9-21 with UCLP and the ten GOSLON reference models sets. METHOD: The 53 sets of plaster models were scored using the MHB index and scanned with a benchtop scanner. The digital models were MHB scored visually using a commercial software program and landmarked for automatic scoring using a software plug-in. Scoring/landmarking was undertaken by three observers and repeated after 1 month. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility were tested using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (threshold > 0.9). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated inter-observer agreement for each model format. Random and systematic error with digital landmark identification error were determined using the x, y, and z co-ordinates for 28 models digitized twice 1 month apart using Cronbach's alpha and a t-test, respectively. RESULTS: Intra-operator landmark identification was excellent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.933) with no differences between sessions (P > 0.05). Intra-observer reproducibility was excellent for all examiners (Cronbach's alpha and ICC 0.986-0.988). Inter-observer reproducibility was highest for the software plug-in (0.991), followed by plaster (0.989) and OrthoAnalyzer (0.979) and Bland-Altman plots confirmed no systematic bias and greater consistency of scores with the automated software. CONCLUSION: The automated MHB software tool is valid, reproducible, and the most objective method of assessing maxillary arch constriction for patients with UCLP. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors declare no conflict of interest or financial relationship with any organization or software used within the study.

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.

Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome: a case report.

Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome (ARS) is a rare autosomal dominant condition manifesting as a heterogeneous group of features. Of particular note are the ocular and craniofacial anomalies and dental features such as hypodontia, microdontia, taurodontism, enamel hypoplasia, conical-shaped teeth, shortened roots and delayed eruption. To treat cases with ARS effectively, a multidisciplinary approach is required, and this report describes the complex and long-term management of a case with input from Paediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics, Restorative Dentistry, Speech and Language Therapy, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Radiology.

The relationship between tooth size discrepancy and archform classification in orthodontic patients.

BACKGROUND: To determine the relationship between clinically significant tooth size discrepancies (TSD) and archform classification in orthodontic patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty teeth with artificial white spot lesions were randomly divided into four groups: (A) distilled and deionized water, (B) Nd:YAG laser, (C) CPP-ACP crème, & (D) CPP-ACP plus laser. SMH was measured using Vickers diamond indenter in Vickers Hardness Number (VHN). Two samples of each group were analyzed using scanning electron microscope (SEM). The results were analyzed with the SPSS 17/win. RESULTS: Reproducibility of the classification of archform was very good (unweighted Kappa statistic of 0.83 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.73, 0.93). There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of archform type between group 1 and group 2 for the upper (p=0.3305) or lower (p=0.6310) arches. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a clinically significant TSD and archform classification do not appear to be related. Key words:Tooth Size, Archform, Bolton discrepancy, digital models, polynomial curve, archform classification.