Extraction vs nonextraction of premolars for orthodontic treatment: A scoping review examining the extent, range, and characteristics of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The debate about whether malocclusion can or should be treated with or without extraction of premolars continues. This scoping review quantifies the literature, summarizes the outcomes researched and methods, and proposes a way to reduce uncertainty in this area. METHODS: Electronic and gray literature searches were undertaken without language restriction, but non-English language titles and abstracts were not translated. A minimum of 2 people independently screened the titles and abstracts. RESULTS: Searches identified 9010 articles, of which 3851 were duplicates; 5159 were screened, and 4617 were excluded (1092 laboratory or animal studies, 1219 case reports or series, 2306 with no information). By consensus, 399 articles contained information concerning differences between orthodontic patients treated with or without premolar extractions (143 were unclear). The majority (n = 372) reported outcomes in 8 areas. Fifty-seven were review articles (32 systematic reviews and 25 nonsystematic reviews or opinions). The most common research design in the remainder was a cohort (n = 280, 82% of 342 articles reporting primary data), of which a very large majority were considered retrospective (n = 249, 89% of articles reported for subjects over ≥2 time points). Only 28 (8% of articles reporting primary data) were judged to involve prospective data collection (4 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 23 cohorts, 1 unclear design). Excluding reviews and unclear articles, 99% (332 out of 336) were considered observational research and only 1% were interventional. CONCLUSIONS: There was limited low-quality evidence that extracting premolars in orthodontic patients have a possible negative effect in 2 outcome areas and a positive effect in 1 outcome area. Most study reports were of low methodological quality, and further reviews are unlikely to provide new information. Investigators should concentrate on collecting primary data of outcomes important to patients. A protocol has been made available to help reduce methodological differences, assist future meta-analyses and increase the generalizability of findings: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CQ49Y.

Oral piercings and orthodontic treatment: A questionnaire-based national survey.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain opinions from orthodontic colleagues nationally on how they currently manage orthodontic patients with oral piercings. The secondary objectives were to assimilate the national opinions from the survey and attempt to generate educational material as an advice sheet and a patient information leaflet for the professionals and the patients respectively for the British Orthodontic Society (BOS). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Primary and secondary care orthodontic providers. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the BOS. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was developed and circulated to members of the BOS to obtain their opinions on the effects of oral piercings on their patients' orthodontic treatment 'journey'. In addition, the need for the development of informative material around the management of orthodontic treatment and appliances in patients with oral piercings was explored. RESULTS: A total of 110 responses were received. However, only 88 respondents out of 110 attempted all the questions within the survey. There were 22 respondents who attempted it partially. We did include these partial responses well while analysing the results, since many of these offered personalised comments in the free-text boxes within the survey. CONCLUSION: The most common general complications associated with oral piercings were inflammation of the surrounding tissue and enamel/dentine wear. Moreover, orthodontic complications, reported commonly, were inadequate oral hygiene maintenance, entanglement with the orthodontic appliance causing damage and interference with retainers. Most respondents expressed the need for the development of a web-based patient information leaflet and an advice sheet as educational tool, both of which have been proposed to and agreed by the BOS before submission of this publication.

An Overview of the Surgical Correction of Dentofacial Deformity.

The correction of severe dentofacial discrepancies involving a combination of orthodontic and surgical therapies (termed 'orthognathic treatment') is commonplace. There is an abundance of evidence within this field but it is often inconsistent. This article is an evidence-based overview of such treatments and is aimed at the general dental practitioner. It will cover: the timing of treatment; the indications and risks associated with different surgical osteotomies; the magnitude of surgical movements that can be achieved with these procedures; and the importance of mandibular autorotation when planning treatment. Orthognathic treatment is considered to be the gold standard for comprehensive correction of severe dentofacial discrepancies. It is undertaken by a multidisciplinary team of clinicians involving, but not exclusive to, consultants in orthodontics and oral and maxillofacial surgery in secondary and tertiary medical centres throughout the United Kingdom. Clinical relevance: It is imperative that general dental practitioners have a good understanding of orthognathic treatment in order to recognize when such treatments are indicated, to inform the patient of possible treatment modalities and to be able to discuss associated risks in order to make appropriate referrals. Since treatment timing and magnitude of surgical movements have a profound effect on stability of the treatment result, these must be carefully considered by all clinicians involved in patient care to minimize relapse potential.

Early childhood caries--a review.

UNLABELLED: Early childhood caries (ECC) is rampant caries of the primary dentition of infants and toddlers. It represents a serious problem in dentistry as it progresses rapidly and affects young children. There is a need to identify risk factors for ECC so that targeted, cost-effective interventions can be designed. The literature indicates that immediate intervention is necessary to prevent further dental destruction, as well as more widespread health problems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Currently, some 4 out of 10 children starting school have decay in their primary dentition. It is prudent for dentists who diagnose ECC to provide therapy or, if treatment is not possible as a result of the young age of the child and limited co-operation, then it is important to refer the patient to an appropriately trained individual for therapy.