Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances.

BACKGROUND: Initial arch wires are the first arch wires inserted into fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment. With a number of different types of orthodontic arch wires available for initial tooth alignment, it is important to understand which are most efficient and which cause the least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. This is the third update of a Cochrane review 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: We searched Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two ongoing trials registries on 4 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different initial arch wires used to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. We included people with full-arch fixed orthodontic appliances on the upper arch, lower arch, or both arches. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors were responsible for study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We contacted corresponding authors of included studies to obtain missing information. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors. Our main outcomes were alignment rate (movement of teeth in mm), root resorption, time to alignment, and intensity of pain measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). We pooled data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes using random-effects models. We reported mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data, and alignment rate ratios with 95% CIs for time-to-event data. Two independent review authors assessed the certainty of evidence. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs with 1915 participants (2581 arches) in this review. Studies were generally small (sample sizes ranged from 14 to 200 participants). Duration of follow-up varied between three days and six months. Eleven studies received funding, six received no funding, and 12 provided no information about funding sources. We judged eight studies at high risk of bias, nine at low risk, and 12 at unclear risk. We grouped the studies into six main comparisons. Multistrand stainless steel wires versus wires composed of other materials Six studies with 409 participants (545 arches) evaluated multistrand stainless steel (StSt) wires versus wires composed of other materials. We are very uncertain about the effect of multistrand StSt wires versus other wires on alignment rate (4 studies, 281 participants, 417 arches; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between multistrand StSt wires and other wires in terms of intensity of pain (MD -2.68 mm, 95% CI -6.75 to 1.38; 2 studies, 127 participants, 127 arches; low-certainty evidence). Conventional nickel-titanium wires versus superelastic nickel-titanium wires Four studies with 266 participants (274 arches) evaluated conventional nickel-titanium (NiTi) wires versus superelastic NiTi wires. There may be little to no difference between the different wire types in terms of alignment rate (124 participants, 124 arches, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and intensity of pain (MD -0.29 mm, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.52; 2 studies, 142 participants, 150 arches; low-certainty evidence). Conventional nickel-titanium wires versus thermoelastic copper-nickel-titanium wires Three studies with 210 participants (210 arches) evaluated conventional Ni-Ti versus thermoelastic copper-nickel-titanium (CuNiTi) wires. We are very uncertain about the effects of the different arch wires on alignment rate (1 study, 66 participants, 66 arches; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between conventional NiTi wires and thermoelastic CuNiTi wires in terms of time to alignment (alignment rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.50; 1 study, 60 participants, 60 arches; low-certainty evidence). Superelastic nickel-titanium wires versus thermoelastic nickel-titanium wires Twelve studies with 703 participants (936 arches) evaluated superelastic NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi wires. There may be little to no difference between superelastic NiTi wires and thermoelastic NiTi wires in alignment rate at four weeks (MD -0.28 mm, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.06; 5 studies, 183 participants, 183 arches; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of the different wires on root resorption (2 studies, 52 participants, 312 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Superelastic NiTi wires compared with thermoelastic NiTi wires may result in a slight increase in time to alignment (MD 0.5 months, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; 1 study, 32 participants, 32 arches; low-certainty evidence) but are probably associated with a slight increase in intensity of pain (MD 6.96 mm, 95% CI 1.82 to 12.10; 3 studies, 94 participants, 138 arches, moderate-certainty evidence). Single-strand superelastic nickel-titanium wires versus coaxial superelastic nickel-titanium wires Three studies with 104 participants (104 arches) evaluated single-strand superelastic NiTi versus coaxial superelastic NiTi wires. Use of single-strand superelastic NiTi wires compared with coaxial superelastic NiTi wires probably results in a slight reduction in alignment rate at four weeks (MD -2.64 mm, 95% CI -4.61 to -0.67; 2 studies, 64 participants, 64 arches, moderate-certainty evidence). Different sizes of nickel-titanium wires Two studies with 149 participants (232 arches) compared different types of NiTi wires. There may be little to no difference between different sizes of NiTi wires in terms of pain (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Superelastic NiTi wires probably produce slightly more pain after one day than thermoelastic NiTi wires, and single-strand superelastic NiTi wires probably have a lower alignment rate over four weeks compared with coaxial superelastic NiTi wires. All other evidence on alignment rate, root resorption, time to alignment, and pain is of low or very low certainty in all comparisons. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether any particular arch wire material or size is superior to any other. The findings of this review are imprecise and unreliable; well-designed larger studies are needed to give better estimates of the benefits and harms of different arch wires. Orthodontists should exercise caution when interpreting the findings of this review and be prepared to adapt their treatment plans based on individual patient needs.

"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.

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

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

Dental education at Dundee Dental Hospital and School - a notable past and inspiring future.

Dundee Dental Hospital and School has been present on Park Place, Dundee for over 100 years. During this time, it has been at the forefront of dental care and education, first as part of the University of St Andrews and subsequently the University of Dundee. This innovation continues with novel undergraduate curricula for dental and dental therapy students, providing early clinical experience and integrating clinical teaching with the appropriate sciences. We also offer several taught postgraduate programmes, popular particularly with international students. Dundee was at the forefront of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme leading the world on guidance for safe clinical practice. Innovative solutions for the ongoing delivery of teaching and assessment also were developed. Research underpins teaching and the delivery of dental care and Dundee has an international reputation for its research portfolio. All of the above can only be achieved by close working relationships between the University and NHS, which will be strengthened further by the creation of the Dundee Dental Research Hospital and School. Our international reputation will continue to attract students and staff from across the world.

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

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

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.

Treatment of a class 2 skeletal malocclusion with degenerative arthritis of the condyles using custom-made temporomandibular joint replacements and genioplasty.

This case report presents the use of custom-made temporomandibular joint prostheses in the treatment of a class 2 malocclusion secondary to juvenile idiopathic arthritis. The patient had degeneration of the mandibular condyles with associated arthropathy and dentofacial deformity. Conventional orthognathic treatment was considered, but would not address the arthropathy. The orthognathic movements were accounted for in the design of the prosthesis and the patient's arthralgia, functional limitations and aesthetics were addressed.