Search

Background The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as the smallest difference that the patient perceives as important. Furthermore, the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) is the important change measured with the benefit-harm trade-off method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the MID in orthodontic treatment duration to inform the decision regarding seeking procedures to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement and reduce treatment duration. Methods We constructed a survey eliciting views of the MID from adult participants from four countries undergoing orthodontic treatment. Ten questions addressed reduction in the treatment duration for both durations 12 and 24 months, and four questions were related to the reduction in treatment duration that the patients would require to undergo surgical or non-surgical adjunctive procedures. We applied a univariable random effects logistic regression model to examine the association between the participants' characteristics and the MID. Then, we fitted a multivariable logistic random effects regression including significant predictors. Results Four hundred and fifty adults, with a median age of 21 (interquartile range: 19–24), undergoing orthodontic treatment participated in the survey. Of the respondents, 60% considered 15 days as a trivial reduction from 12 months duration of therapy and 70% considered 15 days a trivial reduction from 24 months. Of the respondents, 48% considered the period of 2 months a moderate reduction from 12 months, and 60% considered 2 months a moderate reduction from 24 months. From these results, we inferred that patients considered reductions of approximately 1 month as the MID in the treatment duration for both 12 and 24 months. However, SWE was considerably more than the MID for most of the participants to decide undergoing surgical adjunctive procedures to reduce the time of therapy. The participants required smaller SWE to undergo non-surgical procedures compared to surgical procedures. Conclusion The MID in the treatment duration is one month for both treatment durations 12 and 24 months. Patients require a greater SWE than the MID to undergo adjunctive procedures to shorten the duration, particularly for surgical procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the most common retention practices, factors influencing the retention protocol, and the differences among orthodontists regarding retention practices. Methods: An online validated questionnaire was anonymously sent to 3,000 orthodontic residents and clinicians. The survey consisted of 19 questions regarding the participants' demographics, prescribed retention appliances, factors affecting retention appliance choices, and adjunctive retention procedures. Descriptive statistics, Chi2 and Kendall's Tau-b tests were applied. Results: Five hundred fifty-five orthodontic residents and clinicians, 53.3% males and 46.7% females, completed the survey, indicating a response rate of 18.5%. Although participants' demographics, type of treatment and pre-treatment malocclusion influence the choice of retention protocols, thermoplastic retainers (TR) were the most popular retention regime for the maxillary arch for both adults (47.4%) and adolescents (42.3%). Bonded retainers (BR) were the favored option for the mandibular arch (44.9% of adults and 40.7% of adolescents). The degree of arch expansion (64.1%) and the degree of interdigitation (50.1%) after treatment were the most influential factors for the choice of the preferred type of retainers by the respondents. 68.6% of the participants thought professional retention guidelines would be useful. Conclusion: Thermoplastic retainers were the most common retention appliances for adults and adolescents in the maxilla. At the same time, BR was the most favored retainer in the mandibular arch, with clinical experience, practice setting, and malocclusion- and treatment-related factors influencing the type of the chosen appliance. The demographic differences and the uneven participation in the survey need to be considered while interpreting the findings of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess technical factors and audience preferences before attending orthodontic online learning activity, the demand for which increased dramatically in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cross-sectional study. Online survey. Global orthodontic residents and specialists. A validated and anonymous survey comprising 17 online questions was sent to 3000 individuals. The data were collected three months later. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were applied. The participants' response rate was 19.9%, with almost equal gender participation. Most of the responders were based in Asia (51.4%). Almost half of the participants were aged 25–35 years with less than 5 years of clinical experience. Regardless of the age, gender or global distribution, 57.3% of respondents opted to share limited personal information with the host. One-third of the respondents preferred receiving webinar reminders via email, ideally a day and/or one hour before the webinar, especially being exportable to their calendars. Age played a major role in shaping this trend, as young participants favoured the one hour (1-h) pre-webinar reminder more than other age groups (P=0.02). Receiving information about the speaker, learning outcomes and pre-webinar reading material (WRM) were preferable, particularly among young participants in comparison with the older age groups (P<0.05). Male participants from Asia and Africa preferred to attend online lectures during the mid-evening on weekends compared with women who were in favour of early evening sessions (P<0.05). It must be borne in mind during the interpretation of the results that the data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to take into consideration the gender, age, cultural background and level of experience while setting up virtual orthodontic learning sessions. Organisers need to tailor their events to meet the needs of the attendees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Autologous platelet-rich concentrates (PRCs) are recently used as a local biological substance in orthodontics to accelerate the rate of tooth movement. Objectives This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of PRCs on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). Search methods Unrestricted search of five electronic databases supplemented by the manual and gray literature search were undertaken in March 2022. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of PRCs on the rate of OTM with their side effect were included in this systematic review. Data collection and analysis Data items were extracted by two authors using a pre-piloted extraction form. Similar outcomes within a comparable time frame were synthesized in a meta-analysis. Results Fourteen studies were deemed eligible for inclusion and seven RCTs were pooled in a meta-analysis. Canine retraction rate was higher in the side of PRCs injection than the control side by 0.28 mm/month (95% CI: 0.16–0.40, I2 = 95.6 per cent, P  < 0.001, 345 patients) in the first 4 months after PRCs injection. There was no statistically significant difference between the PRCs side and the control side regarding molar anchorage loss (MAL) (MD = 0.03 mm, 95% CI: −0.18 to 0.24, I2 = 46.3 per cent, P  = 0.78, 44 patients), canine rotation (MD = −0.19o, 95% CI: −1.95 to 1.57, I2 = 45.4 per cent, P  = 0.96, 48 patients), or en-masse retraction. Likewise, there was no difference between both groups in terms of the duration of de-crowding. The mandibular canine retraction was statistically higher on the PRCs side than on the control side by 0.17 mm/month (P  < 0.001, one trial). Regarding root resorption, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control sides within the follow-up time. Mild pain scores were reported by the patients in the first 24 hours after injections. Conclusions Low-level evidence indicates that the effect of PRCs on OTM is minor and clinically insignificant. The findings should be interpreted with caution due to the inherent limitations in the included RCTs. Registration PROSPERO (CRD42022300026). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In orthodontic trials, longitudinal designs with multiple outcome measurements over time are common. The aim of this epidemiological study was to examine whether optimal statistical analysis approaches have been used in longitudinal orthodontic trials. Methods Pubmed was searched in August 2021 for longitudinal orthodontic trials with at least three time points of outcome assessment published in the 2017–20 period. Study selection and data extraction were done independently and in duplicate. The analysis approaches undertaken were tabulated and associations between study characteristics and the use of optimal analysis or not were assessed using Fisher's exact test and logistic regression. Results One hundred forty-seven out of 563 unique records were deemed eligible for inclusion. Only 26.50% of these trials used an optimal statistical analysis for longitudinal data where the data structure is accounted for. None of the study characteristics except the statistical significance of the results were associated with the appropriateness of the statistical analysis. The odds of significant results in studies with suboptimal analyses were higher than that in studies with optimal longitudinal analyses (odds ratio: 3.48, 95% confidence interval: 1.62, 7.46, P = 0.001). For the studies with optimal analysis, the most frequent test was repeated-measure analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA). The reporting of the statistical analysis section was suboptimal in the majority of the trials. Conclusion Most longitudinal orthodontic trials are not analysed using optimal statistical approaches. Inferences and interpretation of their results are likely to be compromised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Nonsurgical Correction of Severe Skeletal Class III Malocclusion" by Dr. Luis Carrière in the April 2016 issue.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method used in systematic reviews to provide a quantitative estimate of the effect. However, including very few studies and participants may increase the risk of spurious findings. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) has been introduced to enhance the robustness of meta-analysis. TSA is a cumulative meta-analysis method that weighs type I and II errors while estimating the effect. The application of TSA can lead to a more accurate estimation of the clinical effectiveness of the intervention. The aim of the present paper was to introduce the TSA to orthodontic clinicians and researchers using continuous data from an orthodontic systematic review., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.