Search

Objective To assess the pain profile of patients in the levelling/alignment phase of orthodontic treatment, as reported from randomized clinical trials. Materials and methods Five databases were searched in September 2022 for randomized clinical trials assessing pain during levelling/alignment with a visual analogue scale (VAS). After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by subgroup/meta-regression, and certainty analyses. Results A total of 37 randomized trials including 2277 patients (40.3% male; mean age 17.5 years) were identified. Data indicated quick pain initiation after insertion of orthodontic appliances (n = 6; average = 12.4 mm VAS), a quick increase to a peak at day 1 (n = 29; average = 42.4 mm), and gradually daily decrease the first week until its end (n = 23; average = 9.0 mm). Every second patient reported analgesic use at least once this week (n = 8; 54.5%), with peak analgesic use at 6 h post-insertion (n = 2; 62.3%). Patients reported reduced pain in the evening compared to morning (n = 3; MD = − 3.0 mm; 95%CI = − 5.3, − 0.6; P = 0.01) and increased pain during chewing (n = 2; MD = 19.2 mm; 95% CI = 7.9, 30.4; P n = 2; MD = 12.4 mm; 95% CI = 1.4, 23.4; P = 0.3), while non-consistent effects were seen for patient age, sex, irregularity, or analgesic use. Subgroup analyses indicated increased pain among extraction cases and during treatment of the lower (rather than the upper) arch, while certainty around estimates was moderate to high. Conclusions Evidence indicated a specific pain profile during orthodontic levelling/alignment, without signs of consistent patient-related influencing factors.

Purpose Orthodontic treatment involving premolar extractions might improve the angulation of lower third molars, which are the teeth most often impacted. This study analyzes the impact of first/second lower premolar extraction during orthodontic therapy on the angulation of mandibular third molars. Methods A total of 120 patients treated non-extraction (n = 40), with extraction of first (n = 40), or second lower premolars (n = 40) were included. The mesiodistal angulation of lower third molars relative to the adjacent tooth and their developmental stage were evaluated from posttreatment orthopantomograms. Between-group differences were statistically evaluated at a significance level of 0.05. Results The orthopantomograms of 120 patients (51% female) with a median age of 15.2 years at the time of debonding were evaluated after a mean treatment duration time of 2.9 years. No difference (P > 0.05) was seen between the average angulation of the lower third molars of the right (mean = 24.4°, standard deviation [SD] 13.6°) and the left side (mean = 23.6°, SD 14.1°). No differences in the angulation of the lower third molar were found between the non-extraction and extraction groups for the right (P = 0.44) or the left side (P = 0.22). Likewise, no differences were found when comparing the first and second premolars for the right (P = 0.26) or the left side (P = 0.10). Premolar extraction was associated with an advanced root development stage of the right third molar (odds ratio 7.1; 95% confidence interval 1.1–48.1; P = 0.04), with no differences between extraction of the first or second premolar (P = 0.10). Conclusion Orthodontic treatment involving premolars extractions might be associated with a small acceleration in root development, but not with the angulation, of lower third molars.

Background Failure of eruption of the maxillary permanent incisor teeth usually presents in the mixed dentition between the ages of 7 and 9 years. Missing and unerupted maxillary incisors can be regarded as unattractive and have a potentially negative impact on facial and dental aesthetics. The presence of a supernumerary tooth (or odontoma) is commonly responsible for failed eruption or impaction of the permanent maxillary incisors. The primary objective of this trial is to investigate the success of eruption associated with maxillary incisor teeth that have failed to erupt because of a supernumerary tooth in the anterior maxilla. Methods This protocol describes an interventional multicentre two-arm randomised clinical trial. Participants meeting the eligibility criteria will be randomised (unrestricted equal participant allocation [1:1]) to either space creation with an orthodontic appliance, removal of the supernumerary tooth and application of direct orthodontic traction or space creation with an orthodontic appliance, removal of the supernumerary tooth and monitoring. The primary outcome of this trial is to determine the prevalence of successfully erupted maxillary central permanent incisors at 6 months following removal of the supernumerary tooth. Secondary outcome measures include (1) the effect of initial tooth position (assessed radiographically) on time taken for the tooth to erupt, (2) time taken to align the unerupted tooth to the correct occlusal position, (3) gingival aesthetics and (4) changes in the self-reported Oral Health Related-Quality of Life (OHRQoL) (pre-and post-treatment). Discussion There is a lack of high-quality robust prospective studies comparing the effectiveness of interventions to manage this condition. Furthermore, the UK national clinical guidelines have highlighted a lack of definitive treatment protocols for the management of children who present with an unerupted maxillary incisor due to the presence of a supernumerary tooth. The results of this trial will inform future treatment guidelines for the management of this condition in young children. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12709966. Registered on 16 June 2022.

Purpose Orthodontic fixed appliances have been proven to be effective in treating a wide variety of malocclusions, and different types of appliances have emerged during recent decades. However, the comparative effects of different appliances have not been adequately assessed. Thus, the aim was to assess the occlusal outcome of orthodontic treatment with preadjusted straight-wire (SWIRE) and standard edgewise (SEDGE) appliances. Methods In all, 56 patients (mean age: 13.5 years; 45% male) receiving extraction-based treatment with either SWIRE or SEDGE appliances were included. Between-group differences in the occlusal outcome assessed with the American Board of Orthodontists Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) and treatment duration were analyzed statistically at the 5% level. Results The average ABO-OGS score was 31.3 ± 7.2 points and 34.0 ± 10.4 points in the SWIRE and SEDGE groups with no statistically significant difference between groups (P = 0.26). Treatment duration was significantly shorter in the SWIRE group compared to the SEDGE group, with an average difference of −6.8 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = −9.6 to −4.0 months; P P Conclusion Similar treatment outcomes were observed after premolar extraction treatment with SWIRE and SEDGE appliances. On the other hand, SEDGE appliances were associated with prolonged treatment duration and more visits needed to complete treatment compared to SWIRE appliances.

Objectives Adults with fixed orthodontic appliances are increasing nowadays. Compared with adolescents, adults present biological differences that might influence treatment duration. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare duration of treatment with fixed appliances between adults and adolescents. Materials and methods Eight databases were searched up to September 2019 for randomized and non-randomized clinical studies comparing treatment duration with fixed appliances in adolescents and adult patients. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE. Results A total of 11 unique studies (one prospective and 10 retrospective non-randomized) with 2969 adolescents and 1380 adult patients were finally included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies found no significant difference in the duration of comprehensive treatment with fixed appliances (MD = − 0.8 month; 95% CI = − 4.2 to 2.6 months; P = 0.65; I2 = 92%) between adults and adolescents. Similarly, both distalization of upper first molars with skeletal anchorage for class II correction and the retraction of canines into the premolar extraction spaces lasted similarly long among adults and adolescents. On the other hand, alignment of palatally displaced canines lasted considerably longer in adults compared to adolescents (1 study; MD = 3.8 months; 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.2 months; P = 0.002). The quality of evidence for the meta-analysis was low due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies with considerable risk of bias. Conclusions While existing evidence does not indicate a difference in the overall duration of treatment with fixed appliances between adults and adolescents, the alignment of palatally displaced canines lasted significantly longer in adults. However, our confidence in these estimates is low due to the risk of bias in the included studies. Trial registration PROSPERO: (CRD42019148169)

To compare the 2-year success rates of a Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) with a composite resin in class II primary molar restorations. Healthy, cooperative children aged 4–7.5 years with at least one carious primary molar requiring a class II restoration were included in this parallel randomised trial and allocated on a 1:1 basis to composite resin (Z250, 3M ESPE) or RMGIC (Vitremer, 3M ESPE). Restorations were assessed semiannually up to 2 years clinically and radiographically using modified United States Public Health Service criteria, with the primary outcome being all-cause failure. Data were analysed per protocol by binomial linear regression with Relative Risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). 55 patients were randomly allocated to either group and 44 analysed at 2 years; with 49 teeth in the Z250 and 55 teeth in the Vitremer group. The all-cause failure rate for both materials was 3% after 1 year (4 and 2% for Z250 and Vitremer, respectively) and 16% after 2 years (16% for both Z250 and Vitremer). Overall, no difference between materials could be found at 2 years (RR = 1.4; 95% CI 0.8, 2.4; P = 0.30). However, Vitremer was associated with more favourable gingival health compared to composite (RR = 0.2; 95% CI 0.1, 0.9; P = 0.03), but also occlusal wear, which was observed exclusively for Vitremer. No significant difference was found in the overall performance of the two materials, making them suitable for class II primary molar restorations, although RMGIC presented more pronounced occlusal wear of limited clinical importance after 2 years.

Although several prescriptions and techniques exist for comprehensive fixed appliance treatment, their treatment effects have not yet been adequately assessed in an evidence-based manner. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the therapeutic and adverse effects of various prescriptions or techniques for orthodontic appliances from randomized clinical trials on human patients. Eight databases were searched up to July 2016 for randomized trials assessing any orthodontic prescriptions or techniques in human patients. After elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment according to the Cochrane guidelines, random effects meta-analyses with mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed. Compared to Roth preadjusted appliances, both Begg and modified Begg appliances were associated with statistically significantly worse occlusal outcome assessed with Peer Assessment Review (PAR) scores (1 trial, MD 3.1 points, 95% CI 1.9–4.3 points and 1 trial, MD 2.4 points, 95% CI 1.2–3.6 points, respectively) with low quality of evidence, due to bias and imprecision. Compared to a partially programmed fixed orthodontic appliance, a fully programmed appliance was associated with a statistically significant, but clinically irrelevant increase in treatment duration (1 trial, MD 2.4 months, 95% CI 0.6–4.2 months), supported by high quality of evidence. However, caution is needed in the interpretation of these results as only a limited number of small trials with methodological issues were available. Based on existing trials, there is limited evidence to support any robust clinical recommendation regarding the prescriptions or techniques for fixed orthodontic appliances. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42016042727). Funding: None.

The aim of this study was to examine the presence and extent of small study effects and publication bias in meta-analyses (MAs) based on orthodontic studies. Following an extensive literature search, 25 MAs including 313 studies were identified and were possible to be re-analyzed. For the assessment of publication bias, contour-enhanced funnel plots were examined and their symmetry was tested using the Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation and Egger’s linear regression tests. Robustness of MAs’ results to publication bias was examined by Rosenthal’s failsafe N, and adjusted effect sizes were calculated after consideration of publication bias using Duval and Tweedie’s “trim and fill” procedure. Only few of the originally published MAs assessed the existence and effect of publication bias and some only partially. Inspection of the funnel plots indicated possible asymmetry, which was confirmed by Begg and Mazumdar’s test in 12 % and by Egger’s test in 28 % of the MAs. According to Rosenthal’s criterion, 62 % of the MAs were robust, while adjusted effect estimates with unpublished studies differed from little to great from the unadjusted ones. Pooling of Egger’s intercepts of included MAs indicated that evidence of asymmetry was found in the orthodontic literature, which was accentuated in medical journals and in diagnostic MAs. Small study effects and publication bias can often distort results of MAs. Since indications of publication bias in orthodontics were found, the influence of small trials on estimated treatment effects should be routinely and more carefully assessed by authors conducting MAs.

Background The prosthetic margin location relevant to the free gingival margin may influence the incidence of secondary caries due to the differences that exist between the micro-environment within the gingival crevice compared to the rest of the oral environment. Objective The purpose of this study was to systematically review the effect of prosthetic margin placement on caries susceptibility of abutment teeth. Method Two independent authors identified cohort studies using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, CENTRAL, Google Scholar and Scopus through March 2012. Reference lists were also scanned. Included studies had to report on caries incidence with regard to location of prosthetic margins, with a minimum follow-up period of two years. Results A total of 5,541 references were identified and, after application of the inclusion criteria, 22 studies were included in the systematic review. Random-effects meta-analysis could be made in two studies, in which secondary caries incidence did not differ between margins placed subgingivally compared to equi- or supragingivally placed margins for a follow-up period up to ten years. Indications were found of a possible lower secondary caries rate at 15 years of follow up, based on one study. Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis failed to detect a significantly different secondary caries rate of subgingivally located prosthetic margins in the short to mid-term (≤10 years). Due to the small number and the limitations of the included studies the results do not provide conclusive evidence as to the effect of prosthetic margin placement on the incidence of secondary caries.

This prospective randomized trial investigated the effect of supplemental vibrational force on orthodontic pain during alignment with fixed-appliances. Eighty-one subjects ®) (n = 29); an identical non-functional (sham) device (n = 25) or fixed-appliances only (n = 27). Each subject recorded pain intensity (using a 100-mm visual-analogue scale) and intake of oral analgesia in a questionnaire, following appliance-placement (T1) and first-adjustment (T2) for 1-week (immediately-after, 4, 24, 72-hours and at 1-week). Mean maximum-pain for the total sample was 72.96 mm [SD 21.59; 95%CI 68.19–77.74 mm] with no significant differences among groups (P = 0.282). Subjects taking analgesics reported slightly higher maximum-pain although this was not significant (P = 0.170). The effect of intervention was independent of analgesia (P = 0.883). At T1 and T2, a statistically and clinically significant increase in mean pain was seen at 4 and 24-hours, declining at 72-hours and becoming insignificant at 1-week. For mean alignment-rate, pain-intensity and use of analgesics, no significant differences existed between groups (P > 0.003). The only significant predictor for mean pain was time. Use of an AcceleDent vibrational device had no significant effect on orthodontic pain or analgesia consumption during initial alignment with fixed appliances.