Search

Context: Orthodontics is an unusual speciality as out-patient treatment requires patients to attend services regularly for two to three years. Contact with services is even longer for some patients referred as children, with their parent or carer, and ultimately finishing treatment as autonomous adults. Treatment success is highly dependent on patient co-operation. It is vital for patients to have as good an understanding as possible of what treatment entails, and whether or not it aligns with their expectations, before and during treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the ethics and scientific misconduct in publications. She asserts that the pressure to publish is as great as ever and some reasons are factors such as personal profile, career progression and pressures from grant funders to show results. She implies that the international awareness of the issue is low, although others would argue that it's not lack of awareness, but tolerance of the problem. Examples are given of fraudulent papers.

The author explores the importance of the two scientific studies conducted in the service of practicing orthodontists and have been recognized by the prestigious European Federation of Orthodontics (FEO). He claims that the scientific paper that won an FEO award reveals that a specific type of self-etch primer can be used in servicing patients without risking increased debond rates. He also cites a laboratory-based study which can help improve clinical practice in the future.

The article describes a study which explored the effectiveness of a fluoride-releasing glass bead (FGB) in preventing decalcification compared with the routine use of fluoride rinse (FR) during fixed appliance orthodontic treatment, presented at the 6th International Orthodontic Congress held in Paris, France. The study found no statistical difference in the numbers of patients developing white spots or in the number of teeth developing white spots. It concluded that FGB is an effective method of preventing decalcification.

The article presents commentaries on several orthodontics-related studies. The study on Orthodontic bond failure rates when using OrthoSolo compared to Transbond adhesives was examined. An investigation whether sandblasting would affect the failure rate of orthodontic brackets showed problems in its randomization and power calculation.

The article presents comments related to various orthodontics research. One research discusses the findings on the factors that affect patients' decision whether to undergo an elective orthognathic treatment or not. Another study looks into the outcome from a clinical trial which compares the effectiveness of bonded versus banded first molar attachments.

The article offers instruction to authors who are planning to submit manuscripts to the "Journal of Orthodontics."

The article presents several commentaries on dentistry which are published within the issue. The paper discusses a qualitative study to develop a tool to examine patients' perceptions of the British National Health Services orthodontic treatment. The paper also reports on questionnaire-based survey of orthodontists' opinion regarding aspects of patient management.

Presents commentaries on several scientific papers published in the 2005 issue of "Journal of Orthodontics." Assumption on the usefulness of the research "Patients' Motivations for Treatment and Their Experiences of Orthodontic Preparation for Orthognathic Surgery," by A. C. Williams, H. Shah, H. C. Travess, and J. R. Sandy; Recommendation to read "Report of an Adverse Incident in a Randomized Clinical Trial," by R. L. McAlinden, P. E. Ellis, and J. R. Sandy.

Presents views and comments of the editor regarding the large number of readership of throwaways than the other articles of the "Journal of Orthodontics." Opinion on the quality of throwaway journals; Several reasons why several journals seems not interesting and useful; List of articles found in the journal.

Comments on the status of research in the field of orthodontics. Fundamental problems associated with existing orthodontics research; Functions of orthodontics; Ways by which practitioners and academicians can improve the field of orthodontics.

Editorial. Focuses on developments in the "Journal of Orthodontics". Ethical approval in research/evidence-based practice; Result of the European Clinical Trials Directive; Future of orthodontics.

In this article the author comments on the article regarding the comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed model accuracy. He mentions that the authors evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of a three-dimensional (3D) optical laser-scanning device to record the details of plaster study models. Moreover, he notes that the study was helpful in complex issues that affect model measurement and provides several ways which help improve the accuracy of such model production.

The article offers information on the 2008 Journal of Orthodontics scientific paper of year prize sponsored by Maney Publishing. It mentions that the article "Evaluation of a quality of life measure for children with malocclusion," by C. O'Brien, P.E. Benson and Z. Marshman has been selected as the winner of the scientific paper prize. Moreover, it notes that the paper covers an area of interest within orthodontics and the potential for changing future clinical practice.

The article highlights the best scientific paper published in the "Journal of Orthodontics." The paper "Decontamination of orthodontic bands following size determination and cleaning," by P. E. Benson, and C. W. I. Douglas bagged the Scientific Paper of the Year award. According to the author, papers were judged on their importance to orthodontics, their scientific quality, their presentation/readability and their potential to change practice.

The author reflects on the significance of the FEO award of the European Federation of Orthodontics to dentistry researches. The author said that the award was created to recognize the scientific paper that has made a significant contribution in research and clinical investigation. The paper must also reflect an advanced orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics.

Reminds authors who submit papers to the "Journal of Orthodontics" to obtain appropriate ethical approval and gain informed consent. Significance of the ethical approval process; Types of research requiring ethical approval; Web sites on publication ethical policies.

Discusses the purposes of the "Journal of Orthodontics." Efforts to improve standards by attracting the best papers while reducing time wastage for readers; Reliance of peer review; Possibility of formal statistical reviews.

Background: There is a shortage of evidence on the best type of retainer., Objectives: Evaluate upper and lower bonded retainers (BRs) versus upper and lower vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) over 12 months, in terms of stability, retainer survival, and patient satisfaction., Trial Design: Two-arm parallel group multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trial., Methods: Sixty consecutive patients completing fixed appliance therapy and requiring retainers were recruited from 3 hospital departments. They were randomly allocated to either upper and lower labial segment BRs (n = 30) or upper and lower full-arch VFRs (n = 30). Primary outcome was stability. Secondary outcomes were retainer survival and patient satisfaction. A random sequence of treatment allocation was computer-generated and implemented by sealing in sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes independently prepared in advance. Patients, operators and outcome could not be blinded due to the nature of the intervention., Results: Thirty patients received BRs (median [Mdn] age 16 years, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 2) and 30 received VFRs (Mdn age 17 years, IQR = 4). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. At 12 months, there were no statistically significant inter-group differences in post-treatment change of maxillary labial segment alignment (BR = 1.1 mm, IQR = 1.56, VFR = 0.76 mm, IQR = 1.55, P = 0.61); however, there was greater post-treatment change in the mandibular VFR group (BR = 0.77 mm, IQR = 1.46, VFR = 1.69mm, IQR = 2.00, P = 0.008). The difference in maxillary retainer survival rates were statistically non-significant, P = 0.34 (BR = 63.6%, 239.3 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 191.1-287.5, VFR = 73.3%, 311.1 days, 95% CI = 278.3-344.29). The mandibular BR had a lower survival rate (P = 0.01) at 12 months (BR = 50%, 239.3 days 95% CI = 191.1-287.5, VFR = 80%, 324.9 days 95% CI = 295.4-354.4). More subjects with VFRs reported discomfort (P = 0.002) and speech difficulties (P = 0.004) but found them easier to clean than those with BRs (P = 0.001)., Limitations: Results are after 1 year and we do not know how much the removable retainers were worn., Conclusions: After 1 year, there is no evidence of a significant difference in stability or retainer survival in the maxilla. In the mandible, BRs are more effective at maintaining mandibular labial segment alignment, but have a higher failure rate. In comparison with patients wearing VFRs, patients wearing BRs reported that they caused less interference with speech, required less compliance to wear them, and were more comfortable to wear than VFRs. Patients found the BRs harder to keep clean., Trial Registration: The trail was not registered.

Background: Retainer have the potential to compromise periodontal health., Objectives: Evaluate the periodontal health implications of upper and lower bonded retainers (BRs) versus upper and lower vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) over 12 months., Trial Design: Two-arm parallel group multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial., Methods: Sixty consecutive patients completing upper and lower fixed appliance therapy and requiring retainers were recruited from three hospital orthodontic departments. They were randomly allocated to either upper and lower labial segment BRs (n = 30) or upper and lower full-arch VFRs (n = 30). Periodontal health was assessed using the plaque and gingival indices of Silness and Loe, and the calculus index of Greene and Vermillion. Data were collected at debond and placement of the retainers (T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), and 12 months (T3). A random sequence of treatment allocation was computer-generated and implemented by sealing in sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes independently prepared in advance. Patients, operators, and outcome could not be blinded due to the nature of the intervention., Results: Thirty patients received BRs (median age 16 years, interquartile range [IQR] = 2, 50% female, 50% male) and 30 received VFRs (median age 17 years, IQR = 4, 60% female, 40% male). Gingival inflammation decreased from baseline for both types of retainer. There was significantly less plaque and calculus accumulation and better gingival health with VFRs than BRs over the evaluated 12 months. No serious harm was observed., Limitations: It is not known how much the patients chose to wear their removable retainers. The results reported are after 1 year only., Conclusions: After 1 year, BRs were associated with greater accumulation of plaque and calculus than VFRs and minimally worse gingival inflammation than VFRs, but this did not appear to produce any clinically significant, adverse periodontal health problems., Trial Registration: This trial was not registered., Funding: There was no funding.

Background: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) relate to discomfort of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). The disorder is multifactorial with a degree of psychogenic influence varying throughout an individual's life with phases of symptoms affecting the quality of life. In an attempt to treat this complex group of disorders many treatment modalities have been identified some of which are also considered in other Cochrane reviews. The disorder also has a normal cycle of events appearing to spontaneously improve without treatment., Objectives: To establish the effectiveness of orthodontic intervention in reducing symptoms in patients with TMD (compared with any control group receiving no treatment, placebo treatment or reassurance) and to establish if active orthodontic intervention leads to TMD., Search Strategy: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching of orthodontic journals and other related journals was undertaken in keeping with the Cochrane Collaboration handsearching programme. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of any studies were identified, as were experts offering legal advice, and contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: 13th April 2010., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including quasi-randomised trials assessing orthodontic treatment for TMD were included. Studies with adults aged equal to or above 18 years old with clinically diagnosed TMD were included. There were no age restrictions for prevention trials provided the follow-up period extended into adulthood. The inclusion criteria required reports to state their diagnostic criteria for TMD at the start of treatment and for participants to exhibit two or more of the signs and/or symptoms. The treatment group included treatment with appliances that could induce stable orthodontic tooth movement. Patients receiving splints for 8 to 12 weeks and studies involving surgical intervention (direct exploration/surgery of the joint and/or orthognathic surgery to correct an abnormality of the underlying skeletal pattern) were excluded. The outcomes were: how well were the symptoms reduced, adverse effects on oral health and quality of life., Data Collection and Analysis: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in triplicate and independently by three review authors. As no two studies compared the same treatment strategies (interventions) it was not possible to combine the results of any studies., Main Results: The searches identified 284 records from all databases. Initial screening of the abstracts and titles by all review authors identified 55 articles which related to orthodontic treatment and TMD. The full articles were then retrieved and of these articles only four demonstrated any data that might be of value with respect to TMD and orthodontics. After further analysis of the full texts of the four studies identified, none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria and all were excluded from this review., Authors' Conclusions: There are insufficient research data on which to base our clinical practice on the relationship of active orthodontic intervention and TMD. There is an urgent need for high quality randomised controlled trials in this area of orthodontic practice.When considering consent for patients it is essential to reflect the seemingly random development/alleviation of TMD signs and symptoms.