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.

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

BACKGROUND: Without a phase of retention after successful orthodontic treatment, teeth tend to 'relapse', that is, to return to their initial position. Retention is achieved by fitting fixed or removable retainers to provide stability to the teeth while avoiding damage to teeth and gums. Removable retainers can be worn full- or part-time. Retainers vary in shape, material, and the way they are made. Adjunctive procedures are sometimes used to try to improve retention, for example, reshaping teeth where they contact ('interproximal reduction'), or cutting fibres around teeth ('percision'). This review is an update of one originally published in 2004 and last updated in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of different retainers and retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and OpenGrey up to 27 April 2022 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adults who had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces. We excluded studies with aligners. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Outcomes were stability or relapse of tooth position, retainer failure (i.e. broken, detached, worn out, ill-fitting or lost), adverse effects on teeth and gums (i.e. plaque, gingival and bleeding indices), and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous data, risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data, and hazard ratios (HR) for survival data, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses when similar studies reported outcomes at the same time point; otherwise results were reported as mean ranges. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index (crookedness of anterior teeth) to measure relapse, judging the minimum important difference to be 1 mm. MAIN RESULTS: We included 47 studies, with 4377 participants. The studies evaluated: removable versus fixed retainers (8 studies); different types of fixed retainers (22 studies) or bonding materials (3 studies); and different types of removable retainers (16 studies). Four studies evaluated more than one comparison. We judged 28 studies to have high risk of bias, 11 to have low risk, and eight studies as unclear.  We focused on 12-month follow-up.  The evidence is low or very low certainty. Most comparisons and outcomes were evaluated in only one study at high risk of bias, and most studies measured outcomes after less than a year. Removable versus fixed retainers Removable (part-time) versus fixed   One study reported that participants wearing clear plastic retainers part-time in the lower arch had more relapse than participants with multistrand fixed retainers, but the amount was not clinically significant (Little's Irregularity Index (LII) MD 0.92 mm, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.61; 56 participants). Removable retainers were more likely to cause discomfort (RR 12.22; 95% CI 1.69 to 88.52; 57 participants), but were associated with less retainer failure (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.98; 57 participants) and better periodontal health (Gingival Index (GI) MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.02; 59 participants). Removable (full-time) versus fixed   One study reported that removable clear plastic retainers worn full-time in the lower arch did not provide any clinically significant benefit for tooth stability over fixed retainers (LII MD 0.60 mm, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.03; 84 participants). Participants with clear plastic retainers had better periodontal health (gingival bleeding RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; 84 participants), but higher risk of retainer failure (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.38 to 8.47; 77 participants). The study found no difference between retainers for caries.  Different types of fixed retainers Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) nitinol versus conventional/analogue multistrand One study reported that CAD/CAM nitinol fixed retainers were better for tooth stability, but the difference was not clinically significant (LII MD -0.46 mm, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.21; 66 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between retainers for periodontal health (GI MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 2 studies, 107 participants), or retainer survival (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.49; 1 study, 41 participants). Fibre-reinforced composite versus conventional multistrand/spiral wire  One study reported that fibre-reinforced composite fixed retainers provided better stability than multistrand retainers, but this was not of a clinically significant amount (LII MD -0.70 mm, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.23; 52 participants). The fibre-reinforced retainers had better patient satisfaction with aesthetics (MD 1.49 cm on a visual analogue scale, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.22; 1 study, 32 participants), and similar retainer survival rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; 7 studies; 1337 participants) at 12 months. However, failures occurred earlier (MD -1.48 months, 95% CI -1.88 to -1.08; 2 studies, 103 participants; 24-month follow-up) and more gingival inflammation at six months, though bleeding on probing (BoP) was similar (GI MD 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; BoP MD 0.33, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.79; 1 study, 40 participants). Different types of removable retainers Clear plastic versus Hawley When worn in the lower arch for six months full-time and six months part-time, clear plastic provided similar stability to Hawley retainers (LII MD 0.01 mm, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.67; 1 study, 30 participants). Hawley retainers had lower risk of failure (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83; 1 study, 111 participants), but were less comfortable at six months (VAS MD -1.86 cm, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.53; 1 study, 86 participants). Part-time versus full-time wear of Hawley There was no evidence of a difference in stability between part-time and full-time use of Hawley retainers (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.68; 1 study, 52 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is low to very low certainty, so we cannot draw firm conclusions about any one approach to retention over another. More high-quality studies are needed that measure tooth stability over at least two years, and measure how long retainers last, patient satisfaction and negative side effects from wearing retainers, such as tooth decay and gum disease.

ANTECEDENTES: Sin una fase de retención tras un tratamiento de ortodoncia exitoso, los dientes tienden a "recaer", es decir, a volver a su posición inicial. La retención se consigue colocando retenedores fijos o removibles para proporcionar estabilidad a los dientes y evitar al mismo tiempo daños en dientes y encías. Los retenedores removibles pueden llevarse a tiempo completo o parcial. Los retenedores varían en la forma, el material y el modo de fabricación. A veces se utilizan procedimientos complementarios para intentar mejorar la retención, por ejemplo, remodelando los dientes en la zona de contacto ("reducción interproximal") o cortando fibras alrededor de los dientes ("pericisión"). Esta revisión es una actualización de una publicada originalmente en 2004 y actualizada por última vez en 2016. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos de los diferentes retenedores y estrategias de retención utilizados para estabilizar la posición de los dientes después del tratamiento con aparatos de ortodoncia. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Un documentalista realizó búsquedas en el Registro de ensayos del Grupo Cochrane de Salud oral (Cochrane Oral Health), en CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase y OpenGrey hasta el 27 de abril de 2022 y utilizó métodos de búsqueda adicionales para identificar estudios publicados, no publicados y en curso. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) con niños y adultos a los que se les colocaron retenedores o se les realizaron procedimientos complementarios para prevenir la recaída tras el tratamiento con aparatos de ortodoncia. Se excluyeron los estudios con alineadores. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión realizaron de forma independiente la revisión de los estudios elegibles, evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo y extrajeron los datos. Los desenlaces fueron la estabilidad o recaída de la posición dental, el fracaso del retenedor (es decir, roto, desprendido, desgastado, mal ajustado o perdido), los efectos adversos en dientes y encías (es decir, índices de placa, gingivales y de sangrado) y la satisfacción de los participantes. Se calcularon las diferencias de medias (DM) para los datos continuos, las razones de riesgos (RR) o las diferencias de riesgos (DR) para los datos dicotómicos, y los cociente de riesgos instantáneos (CRI) para los datos de supervivencia, todos ellos con intervalos de confianza (IC) del 95%. Se realizaron metanálisis cuando estudios similares informaron desenlaces en el mismo punto temporal; de lo contrario, los resultados se informaron como rangos medios. Se dio prioridad a la notificación del Little's Irregularity Index (torcedura de los dientes anteriores) para medir la recaída, considerando que la diferencia mínima importante era de 1 mm. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 47 estudios con 4377 participantes. Los estudios evaluaron: retenedores removibles versus fijos (ocho estudios); diferentes tipos de retenedores fijos (22 estudios) o materiales adhesivos (tres estudios); y diferentes tipos de retenedores removibles (16 estudios). Cuatro estudios evaluaron más de una comparación. Se consideró que 28 estudios tenían un alto riesgo de sesgo, 11 un riesgo bajo y en ocho estudios fue incierto. El centro de atención de esta revisión fue el seguimiento a los 12 meses. La evidencia es de certeza baja a muy baja. La mayoría de las comparaciones y los desenlaces se evaluaron en un solo estudio con alto riesgo de sesgo, y la mayoría de los estudios midieron los desenlaces después de menos de un año. Retenedores removibles versus fijos Removible (a tiempo parcial) versus fijo Un estudio informó que los participantes que llevaban retenedores de plástico transparente a tiempo parcial en la arcada inferior presentaron más recaídas que los participantes con retenedores fijos de múltiples barras, pero la cantidad no fue clínicamente significativa (Little's Irregularity Index [IIL] DM 0,92 mm; IC del 95%: 0,23 a 1,61; 56 participantes). Los retenedores removibles tuvieron más probabilidades de causar molestias (RR 12,22; IC del 95%: 1,69 a 88,52; 57 participantes), pero se asociaron con menos fracaso del retenedor (RR 0,44; IC del 95%: 0,20 a 0,98; 57 participantes) y mejor salud periodontal (Gingival Index [IG] DM ­0,34; IC del 95%: ­0,66 a ­0,02; 59 participantes). Removible (a tiempo completo) versus fijo Un estudio informó que los retenedores removibles de plástico transparente utilizados a tiempo completo en la arcada inferior no proporcionaron efectos beneficiosos clínicamente significativos en la estabilidad dental en comparación con los retenedores fijos (LII DM 0,60 mm; IC del 95%: 0,17 a 1,03; 84 participantes). Los participantes con retenedores de plástico transparente tenían mejor salud periodontal (sangrado gingival RR 0,53; IC del 95%: 0,31 a 0,88; 84 participantes), pero mayor riesgo de fracaso del retenedor (RR 3,42; IC del 95%: 1,38 a 8,47; 77 participantes). El estudio no encontró diferencias entre los retenedores en las caries. Diferentes tipos de retenedores fijos De nitinol con diseño asistido por ordenador/fabricación asistida por ordenador (DAO/FAO) versus de múltiples barras convencional/analógico Un estudio informó que los retenedores fijos de nitinol con DAO/FAO fueron mejores para la estabilidad dental, pero la diferencia no fue clínicamente significativa (LII DM ­0,46 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,72 a ­0,21; 66 participantes). No hubo evidencia de una diferencia entre los retenedores en la salud periodontal (GI MD 0,00; IC del 95%: ­0,16 a 0,16; dos estudios, 107 participantes) ni en la supervivencia del retenedor (RR 1,29; IC del 95%: 0,67 a 2,49; un estudio, 41 participantes). Composite reforzado con fibra versus alambre de múltiples barras/en espiral convencional Un estudio informó que los retenedores fijos de composite reforzado con fibra proporcionaron una mayor estabilidad que los retenedores de múltiples barras, pero no fue clínicamente significativa (LII DM ­0,70 mm; IC del 95%: ­1,17 a ­0,23; 52 participantes). Los retenedores reforzados con fibra tuvieron una mejor satisfacción del paciente con respecto a la estética (DM 1,49 cm en una escala visual analógica; IC del 95%: 0,76 a 2,22; un estudio, 32 participantes) y tasas similares de supervivencia del retenedor (RR 1,01, IC del 95%: 0,84 a 1,21; siete estudios; 1337 participantes) a los 12 meses. Sin embargo, los fracasos se produjeron antes (DM ­1,48 meses; IC del 95%: ­1,88 a ­1,08; dos estudios, 103 participantes; seguimiento de 24 meses) y más inflamación gingival a los seis meses, aunque el sangrado al sondaje (SS) fue similar (GI DM 0,59; IC del 95%: 0,13 a 1,05; SS DM 0,33; IC del 95%: ­0,13 a 0,79; un estudio, 40 participantes). Diferentes tipos de retenedores removibles Plástico transparente versus Hawley Cuando se llevó en la arcada inferior durante seis meses a tiempo completo y seis meses a tiempo parcial, el plástico transparente proporcionó una estabilidad similar a los retenedores Hawley (LII DM 0,01 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,65 a 0,67; un estudio, 30 participantes). Los retenedores Hawley tuvieron un menor riesgo de fracaso (RR 0,60; IC del 95%: 0,43 a 0,83; un estudio, 111 participantes), pero resultaron menos cómodos a los seis meses (EVA DM ­1,86 cm; IC del 95%: ­2,19 a ­1,53; un estudio, 86 participantes). Hawley a tiempo parcial versus a tiempo completo No hubo evidencia de una diferencia en la estabilidad entre el uso a tiempo parcial y a tiempo completo de los retenedores Hawley (DM 0,20 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,28 a 0,68; un estudio, 52 participantes). CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La evidencia es de certeza baja a muy baja, por lo que no fue posible establecer conclusiones firmes sobre un método de retención en detrimento de otro. Se necesitan más estudios de alta calidad que midan la estabilidad de los dientes durante al menos dos años, así como la duración de los retenedores, la satisfacción de los pacientes y los efectos secundarios negativos del uso de retenedores, como caries y enfermedades de las encías.

Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children.

BACKGROUND: Crowded teeth develop when there is not enough space in the jaws into which the teeth can erupt. Crowding can affect baby teeth (deciduous dentititon), adult teeth (permanent dentition), or both, and is a common reason for referral to an orthodontist. Crowded teeth can affect a child's self-esteem and quality of life. Early loss of baby teeth as a result of tooth decay or trauma, can lead to crowded permanent teeth. Crowding tends to increase with age, especially in the lower jaw. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic intervention for preventing or correcting crowded teeth in children. To test the null hypothesis that there are no differences in outcomes between different orthodontic interventions for preventing or correcting crowded teeth in children. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 11 January 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any active interventions to prevent or correct dental crowding in children and adolescents, such as orthodontic braces or extractions, compared to no or delayed treatment, placebo treatment or another active intervention. The studies had to include at least 80% of participants aged 16 years and under. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, independently and in duplicate, extracted information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms and results. We resolved any disagreements by liaising with a third review author. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We calculated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We undertook meta-analysis when studies of similar comparisons reported comparable outcome measures, using the random-effects model. We used the I2 statistic as a measure of statistical heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified 24 RCTs that included 1512 participants, 1314 of whom were included in analyses. We assessed 23 studies as being at high risk of bias and one as unclear.  The studies investigated 17 comparisons. Twenty studies evaluated fixed appliances and auxiliaries (lower lingual arch, lower lip bumper, brackets, archwires, lacebacks, headgear and adjunctive vibrational appliances); two studies evaluated removable appliances and auxiliaries (Schwarz appliance, eruption guidance appliance); and two studies evaluated dental extractions (lower deciduous canines or third molars). The evidence should be interpreted cautiously as it is of very low certainty. Most interventions were evaluated by a single study. Fixed appliances and auxiliaries One study found that use of a lip bumper may reduce crowding in the early permanent dentition (MD -4.39 mm, 95% CI -5.07 to -3.71; 34 participants). One study evaluated lower lingual arch but did not measure amount of crowding. One study concluded that coaxial nickel-titanium (NiTi) archwires may cause more tooth movement in the lower arch than single-stranded NiTi archwires (MD 6.77 mm, 95% CI 5.55 to 7.99; 24 participants). Another study, comparing copper NiTi versus NiTi archwires, found NiTi to be more effective for reducing crowding (MD 0.49 mm, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63, 66 participants). Single studies did not show evidence of one type of archwire being better than another for Titinol versus Nitinol; nickel-titanium versus stainless steel or multistrand stainless steel; and multistranded stainless steel versus stainless steel.  Nor did single studies find evidence of a difference in amount of crowding between self-ligating and conventional brackets, active and passive self-ligating brackets, lacebacks added to fixed appliances versus fixed appliances alone, or cervical pull headgear versus minor interceptive procedures. Meta-analysis of two studies showed no evidence that adding vibrational appliances to fixed appliances reduces crowding at 8 to 10 weeks (MD 0.24 mm, 95% CI -0.81 to 1.30; 119 participants). Removable appliances and auxiliaries One study found use of the Schwarz appliance may be effective at treating dental crowding in the lower arch (MD -2.14 mm, 95% CI -2.79 to -1.49; 28 participants). Another study found an eruption guidance appliance may reduce the number of children with crowded teeth after one year of treatment (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.68; 46 participants); however, this may have been due to an increase in lower incisor proclination in the treated group. Whether these gains were maintained in the longer term was not assessed. Dental extractions One study found that extracting children's lower deciduous canines had more effect on crowding after one year than no treatment (MD -4.76 mm, 95 CI -6.24 to -3.28; 83 participants), but this was alongside a reduction in arch length. One study found that extracting wisdom teeth did not seem to reduce crowding any more than leaving them in the mouth (MD -0.30 mm, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.70; 77 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most interventions were assessed by single, small studies. We found very low-certainty evidence that lip bumper, used in the mixed dentition, may be effective for preventing crowding in the early permanent dentition, and a Schwarz appliance may reduce crowding in the lower arch. We also found very low-certainty evidence that coaxial NiTi may be better at reducing crowding than single-stranded NiTi, and that NiTi may be better than copper NiTi. As the current evidence is of very low certainty, our findings may change with future research.

Fluorides for preventing early tooth decay (demineralised lesions) during fixed brace treatment.

BACKGROUND: Early dental decay or demineralised lesions (DLs, also known as white spot lesions) can appear on teeth during fixed orthodontic (brace) treatment. Fluoride reduces decay in susceptible individuals, including orthodontic patients. This review compared various forms of topical fluoride to prevent the development of DLs during orthodontic treatment. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate whether topical fluoride reduces the proportion of orthodontic patients with new DLs after fixed appliances. The secondary objectives were to examine the effectiveness of different modes of topical fluoride delivery in reducing the proportions of orthodontic patients with new DLs, as well as the severity of lesions, in terms of number, size and colour. Participant-assessed outcomes, such as perception of DLs, and oral health-related quality of life data were to be included, as would reports of adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 1 February 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 1 February 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 1 February 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 1 February 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (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: Parallel-group, randomised controlled trials comparing the use of a fluoride-containing product versus a placebo, no treatment or a different type of fluoride treatment, in which the outcome of enamel demineralisation was assessed at the start and at the end of orthodontic treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently, in duplicate, conducted risk of bias assessments and extracted data. Authors of trials were contacted to obtain missing data or to ask for clarification of aspects of trial methodology. Cochrane's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 10 studies and contains data from nine studies, comparing eight interventions, involving 1798 randomised participants (1580 analysed). One report contained insufficient information and the authors have been contacted. We assessed two studies as at low risk of bias, six at unclear risk of bias, and two at high risk of bias. Two placebo (non-fluoride) controlled studies, at low risk of bias, investigated the professional application of varnish (7700 or 10,000 parts per million (ppm) fluoride (F)), every six weeks and found insufficient evidence of a difference regarding its effectiveness in preventing new DLs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 1.93; 405 participants; low-certainty evidence). One placebo (non-fluoride) controlled study, at unclear risk of bias, provides a low level of certainty that fluoride foam (12,300 ppm F), professionally applied every two months, may reduce the incidence of new DLs (12% versus 49%) after fixed orthodontic treatment (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.57; 95 participants). One study, at unclear risk of bias, also provides a low level of certainty that use of a high-concentration fluoride toothpaste (5000 ppm F) by patients may reduce the incidence of new DLs (18% versus 27%) compared with a conventional fluoride toothpaste (1450 ppm F) (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.00; 380 participants). There was no evidence for a difference in the proportions of orthodontic patients with new DLs on the teeth after treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances for the following comparisons: - an amine fluoride and stannous fluoride toothpaste/mouthrinse combination versus a sodium fluoride toothpaste/mouthrinse, - an amine fluoride gel versus a non-fluoride placebo applied by participants at home once a week and by professional application every three months, - resin-modified glass ionomer cement versus light-cured composite resin for bonding orthodontic brackets, - a 250 ppm F mouthrinse versus 0 ppm F placebo mouthrinse, - the use of an intraoral fluoride-releasing glass bead device attached to the brace versus a daily fluoride mouthrinse. The last two comparisons involved studies that were assessed at high risk of bias, because a substantial number of participants were lost to follow-up. Unfortunately, although the internal validity and hence the quality of the studies has improved since the first version of the review, they have compared different interventions; therefore, the findings are only considered to provide low level of certainty, because none has been replicated by follow-up studies, in different settings, to confirm external validity. A patient-reported outcome, such as concern about the aesthetics of any DLs, was still not included as an outcome in any study. Reports of adverse effects from topical fluoride applications were rare and unlikely to be significant. One study involving fluoride-containing glass beads reported numerous breakages. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found a low level of certainty that 12,300 ppm F foam applied by a professional every 6 to 8 weeks throughout fixed orthodontic treatment, might be effective in reducing the proportion of orthodontic patients with new DLs. In addition, there is a low level of certainty that the patient use of a high fluoride toothpaste (5000 ppm F) throughout orthodontic treatment, might be more effective than a conventional fluoride toothpaste. These two comparisons were based on single studies. There was insufficient evidence of a difference regarding the professional application of fluoride varnish (7700 or 10,000 ppm F). Further adequately powered, randomised controlled trials are required to increase the certainty of these findings and to determine the best means of preventing DLs in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. The most accurate means of assessing adherence with the use of fluoride products by patients and any possible adverse effects also need to be considered. Future studies should follow up participants beyond the end of orthodontic treatment to determine the effect of DLs on patient satisfaction with treatment.

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs composite for orthodontic bonding: A multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to compare the incidence of new demineralized lesions and bond failures between 2 groups of participants wearing fixed orthodontic appliances bonded with either light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement or light-cured composite. METHODS: This trial was a multicenter (6 centers: 2 teaching hospitals, 4 specialist orthodontic practices), single-blinded, randomized controlled trial with 2 parallel groups. Patients aged 11 years or older, in the permanent dentition, and about to start fixed orthodontic treatment in these 6 centers were randomly allocated to have either resin-modified glass ionomer cement or light-cured composite for bonding brackets, forward of the first molars. Pretreatment and day-of-debond digital photographic images were taken of the teeth and assessed by up to 5 clinical and 3 lay assessors for the presence or absence of new demineralized lesions and the esthetic impact. The assessors were masked as to group allocation. RESULTS: We randomized 210 participants, and 197 completed the trial. There were 173 with complete before-and after-digital images of the teeth. The incidence of new demineralized lesions was 24%; but when the esthetic impact was taken into account, this was considerably lower (9%). There was no statistically significant difference between the bracket adhesives in the numbers with at least 1 new demineralized lesion (risk ratio,1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-2.13; P = 0.403) or first-time bracket failure (risk ratio,0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.16; P = 0.35). There were no adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that the use of resin modified glass ionomer cement over light-cured composite for bonding brackets reduces the incidence of new demineralized lesions or bond failures. There might be other reasons for using resin modified glass ionomer cement. REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.govNCT01925924. PROTOCOL: The protocol is available from the corresponding author on request.

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.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets.

BACKGROUND: Bonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment which increases operator chairside time and lengthens treatment time. A prolonged treatment is likely to increase the oral health risks of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances one of which is irreversible enamel decalcification. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2003. A new full search was conducted on 26 September 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane Review remain the same. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 September 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (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: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing two different adhesive groups. Participants were patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. The interventions were adhesives that bonded stainless steel brackets to all teeth except the molars. The primary outcome was debond or bracket failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were recorded on decalcification as a secondary outcome, if present. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted in duplicate by pairs of review authors. Since the data were not presented in a form that was amenable to meta-analysis, the results of the review are presented in narrative form only. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. A chemical cured composite was compared with a light cured composite (one trial), a conventional glass ionomer cement (one trial) and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (one trial). The quality of the trial reports was generally poor. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence on which to make a clinical decision of the type of orthodontic adhesive to use.

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

BACKGROUND: A Class II division 2 malocclusion is characterised by upper front teeth that are retroclined (tilted toward the roof of the mouth) and an increased overbite (deep overbite), which can cause oral problems and may affect appearance.This problem can be corrected by the use of special dental braces (functional appliances) that move the upper front teeth forward and change the growth of the upper or lower jaws, or both. Most types of functional appliances are removable and this treatment approach does not usually require extraction of any permanent teeth. Additional treatment with fixed braces may be necessary to ensure the best result.An alternative approach is to provide space for the correction of the front teeth by moving the molar teeth backwards. This is done by applying a force to the teeth from the back of the head using a head brace (headgear) and transmitting this force to part of a fixed or removable dental brace that is attached to the back teeth. The treatment may be carried out with or without extraction of permanent teeth.If headgear use is not feasible, the back teeth may be held in place by bands connected to a fixed bar placed across the roof of the mouth or in contact with the front of the roof of the mouth. This treatment usually requires two permanent teeth to be taken out from the middle of the upper arch (one on each side). OBJECTIVES: To establish whether orthodontic treatment that does not involve extraction of permanent teeth produces a result that is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 13 November 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 November 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 13 November 2017). To identify any unpublished or ongoing trials, the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch) were searched. We also contacted international researchers who were likely to be involved in any Class II division 2 clinical trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of orthodontic treatments to correct deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results to find eligible studies, and would have extracted data and assessed the risk of bias from any included trials. We had planned to use random-effects meta-analysis; to express effect estimates as mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals; and to investigate any clinical or methodological heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any RCTs or CCTs that assessed the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusion in children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from clinical trials to recommend or discourage any type of orthodontic treatment to correct Class II division 2 malocclusion in children. This situation seems unlikely to change as trials to evaluate the best management of Class II division 2 malocclusion are challenging to design and conduct due to low prevalence, difficulties with recruitment and ethical issues with randomisation.

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.

Adult orthodontics in the Republic of Ireland: specialist orthodontists' opinions.

OBJECTIVES: To report the opinions of specialist orthodontists regarding the profile, characteristics and treatment of adults currently undergoing orthodontic treatment in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) Design/setting: A national cross-sectional questionnaire study in the ROI. METHOD: A pilot-tested questionnaire was distributed to 122 specialist orthodontists in the ROI. Questions addressed general and treatment information for current adult orthodontic patients. Those whose treatment involved orthognathic surgery were not excluded. RESULTS: A response of 83% was obtained. Ninety-five per cent of specialists reported treating adults, most of whom were self-referred and were typically professional, female and aged 25-35 years. The overall ratio quoted of professionals to non-professionals was almost 3:2. For 50% of specialists, males were estimated to account for 20-40% of their adult cases and for 23%, this increased to an estimated 40-60%. Class II division 1 malocclusion and skeletal II were considered the most common dentofacial characteristics. Occlusal features encountered in decreasing frequency were generalised crowding, increased overjet, deep overbite, late lower incisor crowding, spacing and impacted teeth. Fifteen per cent reported that at least 10% of their adult cases required orthodontics with maxillofacial surgery but 8% reported that this was at least 50%. Treatment challenges commonly acknowledged were overbite reduction, anchorage management, 'black triangles' and overjet reduction. Tooth whitening was reckoned to be used by 19% of specialists. Aesthetic upper and stainless steel lower brackets were indicated to be used most often whereas only 19% used clear aligners and 10% used lingual appliances often. CONCLUSIONS: The profile and characteristics of adults currently undergoing orthodontic treatment in the ROI were diverse. Higher estimates were quoted for self- than for general dental practitioner-referral. A high percentage of treatment was reported to be undertaken for non-professionals and males. A wide range of treatment and varying use of appliance types were cited.

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

BACKGROUND: A Class II division 2 malocclusion is characterised by upper front teeth that are retroclined (tilted toward the roof of the mouth) and an increased overbite (deep overbite), which can cause oral problems and may affect appearance.This problem can be corrected by the use of special dental braces (functional appliances) that move the upper front teeth forward and change the growth of the upper or lower jaws, or both. Most types of functional appliances braces are removeable and this treatment approach does not usually require extraction of any permanent teeth. Additional treatment with fixed braces may be necessary to ensure the best result.An alternative approach is to provide space for the correction of the front teeth by moving the molar teeth backwards. This is done by applying a force to the teeth from the back of the head using a head brace (headgear) and transmitting this force to part of a fixed or removable dental brace that is attached to the back teeth. The treatment may be carried out with or without extraction of permanent teeth.If headgear use is not feasible, the back teeth may be held in place by bands connected to a fixed bar placed across the roof of the mouth or in contact with the front of the roof of the mouth. This treatment usually requires two permanent teeth to be taken out (one on each side). OBJECTIVES: To establish whether orthodontic treatment that does not involve extraction of permanent teeth produces a result that is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 January 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 January 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 January 2017). To identify any unpublished or ongoing trials, the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch) were searched. We also contacted international researchers who were likely to be involved in any Class II division 2 clinical trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of orthodontic treatments to correct deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results to find eligible studies, and would have extracted data and assessed the risk of bias from any included trials. We had planned to use random-effects meta-analysis; to express effect estimates as mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals; and to investigate any clinical or methodological heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any RCTs or CCTs that assessed the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusion in children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to provide any evidence-based guidance to recommend or discourage any type of orthodontic treatment to correct Class II division 2 malocclusion in children. Trials should be conducted to evaluate the best management of Class II division 2 malocclusion.

Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being glued to the teeth so that they do not become detached during treatment. Brackets (metal squares) are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round each tooth) are more commonly used. Orthodontic tubes (stainless steel tubes that allow wires to pass through them), are typically welded to bands but they may also be glued directly (bonded) to molars. Failure of brackets, bands and bonded molar tubes slows down the progress of treatment with a fixed appliance. It can also be costly in terms of clinical time, materials and time lost from education/work for the patient. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2011. A new full search was conducted on 15 February 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane review remain the same. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes, and the relative effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes versus adhesives used to attach bands, during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the tubes (or bands) come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the bonded (or banded) teeth against decay. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 February 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 February 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 February 2017). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes, bonded to first or second permanent molars. Trials which compared any type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (stainless steel or titanium) with any other adhesive, were included.Trials were also included where:(1) a tube was bonded to a molar tooth on one side of an arch and a band cemented to the same tooth type on the opposite side of the same arch;(2) molar tubes had been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The selection of papers, decision about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%).One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of:(1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and(2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

Adult orthodontics: a quality assessment of Internet information.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the quality, reliability and readability of information on the Internet on adult orthodontics. DESIGN: A quality assessment of adult orthodontic websites. SETTING: Postgraduate Orthodontic Unit, Cork University Dental School and Hospital, Cork, Ireland. METHOD: An Internet search using three search engines (Google, Yahoo and Bing) was conducted using the terms ('adult orthodontics' and 'adult braces'). The first 50 websites from each engine and under each search term were screened and exclusion criteria applied. Included websites were then assessed for quality using four methods: the HON seal, JAMA benchmarks, the DISCERN instrument and the LIDA tool. Readability of included websites was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). RESULTS: Only 13 websites met the inclusion criteria. Most were of US origin (n = 8; 61%). The authors of the websites were dentists (n = 5; 39%), professional organizations (n = 2; 15%), past patients (n = 2; 15%) and unspecified (n = 4; 31%). Only 1 website displayed the HON seal and three websites contained all JAMA benchmarks. The mean overall score for DISCERN was 3.9/5 and the mean total LIDA score was 115/144. The average FRES score was 63.1/100. CONCLUSIONS: The number of informative websites on adult orthodontics is low and these are of moderate quality. More accurate, high-quality Internet resources are required on adult orthodontics. Recommendations are made as to how this may be achieved.

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

BACKGROUND: Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic braces. Without a phase of retention, there is a tendency for teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse, almost every person who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 26 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 26 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 26 January 2016). We searched for ongoing trials in the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We applied no language or date restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. We contacted authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to help identify any unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs involving children and adults who had had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed the risk of bias in the trials and extracted data. The outcomes of interest were: how well the teeth were stabilised, failure of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. We conducted meta-analyses when studies with similar methodology reported the same outcome. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index to measure relapse. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies (1722 participants) in the review. There are also four ongoing studies and four studies await classification. The 15 included studies evaluated four comparisons: removable retainers versus fixed retainers (three studies); different types of fixed retainers (four studies); different types of removable retainers (eight studies); and one study compared a combination of upper thermoplastic and lower bonded versus upper thermoplastic with lower adjunctive procedures versus positioner. Four studies had a low risk of bias, four studies had an unclear risk of bias and seven studies had a high risk of bias. Removable versus fixed retainers Thermoplastic removable retainers provided slightly poorer stability in the lower arch than multistrand fixed retainers: MD (Little's Irregularity Index, 0 mm is stable) 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.17 to 1.03). This was based on one trial with 84 participants that was at high risk of bias; it was low quality evidence. Results on retainer failure were inconsistent. There was evidence of less gingival bleeding with removable retainers: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; one trial, 84 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence), but participants found fixed retainers more acceptable to wear, with a mean difference on a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100; 100 being very satisfied) of -12.84 (95% CI -7.09 to -18.60). Fixed versus fixed retainersThe studies did not report stability, adverse effects or participant satisfaction. It was possible to pool the data on retention failure from three trials that compared polyethylene ribbon bonded retainer versus multistrand retainer in the lower arch with an RR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.57; moderate heterogeneity; three trials, 228 participants, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in failure rates. It was also possible to pool the data from two trials that compared the same types of upper fixed retainers, with a similar finding: RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.78; low heterogeneity; two trials, 174 participants, low quality evidence). Removable versus removable retainersOne study at low risk of bias comparing upper and lower part-time thermoplastic versus full-time thermoplastic retainer showed no evidence of a difference in relapse (graded moderate quality evidence). Another study, comparing part-time and full-time wear of lower Hawley retainers, found no evidence of any difference in relapse (low quality evidence). Two studies at high risk of bias suggested that stability was better in the lower arch for thermoplastic retainers versus Hawley, and for thermoplastic full-time versus Begg (full-time) (both low quality evidence).In one study, participants wearing Hawley retainers reported more embarrassment more often than participants wearing thermoplastic retainers: RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.49; one trial, 348 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence). They also found Hawley retainers harder to wear. There was conflicting evidence about survival rates of Hawley and thermoplastic retainers. Other retainer comparisonsAnother study with a low risk of bias looked at three different approaches to retention for people with crowding, but normal jaw relationships. The study found that there was no evidence of a difference in relapse between the combination of an upper thermoplastic and lower canine to canine bonded retainer and the combination of an upper thermoplastic retainer and lower interproximal stripping, without a lower retainer. Both these approaches are better than using a positioner as a retainer. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any evidence that wearing thermoplastic retainers full-time provides greater stability than wearing them part-time, but this was assessed in only a small number of participants.Overall, there is insufficient high quality evidence to make recommendations on retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Further high quality RCTs are needed.

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.