Search

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 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.

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 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.

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.