Search

Gingival recession can be defined as the apical shift of the marginal gingiva from its normal position on the crown of the tooth to levels on the root surface beyond the cemento-enamel junction. The aetiology of this condition is multifactorial, but can result from a traumatic occlusion. The long-term prognosis of teeth with localised gingival recession can be uncertain. Successful management of these cases may involve either orthodontic or periodontal treatment in isolation or in combination.

Background The published literature represents the fundamental basis of any academic specialty, including orthodontics. Orthodontic research outputs provide useful insight into clinical and research priorities, which can help inform future research efforts and resource outputs. In recent years, the need for more patient-reported outcomes in orthodontic research has been highlighted. Objectives To identify the most common reported research subjects in orthodontics between 2013–23; (2) identify the main outcomes and types of study design associated with this research, including study design related to patient-reported outcomes; and (3) identify trends in this research activity based upon these findings. Material and methods A literature search was performed in a single electronic database (Scopus) to return all indexed publications with relevance to orthodontics published from 2013 to 2023. The 50 most-cited publications per year were then identified. Publication characteristics were extracted using a data collection sheet. Descriptive statistics including frequency distributions were calculated. Results A total of 14 397 publications were identified. Publications on orthodontic bonding made up 7.02% of all output, followed by materials (5.88%) and tooth movement (5.42%). Subsequent analysis of the most-cited publications per year revealed the most frequently published subjects were aligners (12.5%), orthodontic tooth movement (9.45%), and digital workflow (9.09%), and the most common study designs were in vitro (19.09%) and retrospective observational studies (15.45%). The most common outcome type was morphological features of malocclusion (26.9%). Conversely, patient-focused measures were only reported in 12.7% of studies. Conclusions Orthodontic research outputs are dynamic but do show consistent research interest in certain subjects. There is a predilection for the reporting of clinician-focused outcomes; whilst these have some value, more efforts should be focused on conducting rigorous and robust studies that include patient-reported outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines were introduced to improve the reporting of animal studies. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting adherence of orthodontic speciality animal studies in relation to ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. Associations between the reporting and study characteristics were explored. Materials and method An electronic database search was undertaken using Medline via PubMed (www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) to identify studies meeting the eligibility criteria published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions for the responses to each checklist item were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per ARRIVE item were calculated. A sum score was calculated by adding the responses (0 = not reported, 1 = inadequate reporting, 2 = adequate reporting) per item and sub-questions. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and study characteristics (year of publication, continent of authorship, type of centre, and number of authors) was performed. Results Three hundred and eighty-four studies were analysed. Variability in the adequate reporting of the ARRIVE 2.0 guideline items was evident. In particular, in 32% of studies, there was a lack of reporting of the priori sample size calculation. Overall, the mean reporting score for the sample was 57.9 (SD 6.7 and range 34–74). There were no associations between score and study characteristics except for a weak association for year of publication with a small improvement over time (each additional year). Conclusions The reporting of animal studies relevant to the speciality of orthodontics is sub-optimal in relation to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. There was a tendency for the non-reporting of items pertaining to study sample size, eligibility, methods to reduce bias and interpretation/scientific implications. Greater awareness and reporting adherence to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines are required to reduce research waste involving animal models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate clear aligner therapy (CAT) practice among orthodontists in the British Orthodontic Society (BOS). Design: A cross-sectional online survey. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to members of the BOS in 2022. The survey comprised questions regarding respondent demographics, general use of CAT, the choice of proprietary CAT appliances, CAT planning, case selection, treatment protocols and orthodontist-reported CAT problems. Results: Overall, there were 233 (19.5%) respondants with the majority (n = 121, 53.1%) being female. Most respondents reported practising in England (n = 171, 74.7%). The majority (n = 177, 77.3%) indicated that they used CAT in their practice, with 48.1% (n = 81) treating 1–20 patients with CAT annually. The most frequently prescribed CAT system was Invisalign (n = 138, 81.2%). One to three changes to the initial digital treatment plan were made by 72.9% (n = 121) with final tooth positions being the most common reason for adjustment (64.4%). Most (n = 97, 60.3%) rarely or never performed premolar extractions with CAT. Of the respondents, 23 12.7%) reported that they always or mostly used a remote monitoring system in conjunction with CAT, with a wide range of aligner change protocols reported. The median number of months required to complete non-extraction CAT reported by the respondents was 12. Most respondents (n = 77, 51.7%) did not feel that CAT provides superior outcomes compared with fixed appliance therapy. Conclusion: CAT practice varied widely among the surveyed orthodontists. A predilection for the use of Invisalign and utility in less severe cases was noted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The results of trials can inform health care decisions. However, this is dependent on both clear and transparent reporting. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of split-mouth trials in implant dentistry in relation to the CONSORT extension checklist for reporting within-person randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Materials and Methods: Split-mouth trials published between January 1, 1997, and September 30, 2020, were identified from four databases. Study characteristics at the level of each trial were extracted. Each trial was assessed against a 37-item checklist and assigned one of four categories. Descriptive statistics and the frequencies of the ratings per checklist item were calculated. A percentage score was calculated per study. Linear regression assessed associations between the aggregate score and the study characteristics. Results: Two hundred forty-four trials were analyzed. More than 50% of the RCTs were published between 2016 and 2020, were published in specialty journals (81.2%), and were interventional-type RCTs (98.4%). Generally, the reporting of checklist items was suboptimal in many areas. The reporting score was predicated by the number of authors (> 7 vs baseline [1 to 4] authors: β: 6.00; 1.48, 10.52; P = .01), authors' continent (Europe vs Americas: β: 5.30; 0.85, 9.74; P = .02), and the number of participants (per-unit increase: β: .07; 0.01, 0.12; P = .02). Conclusion: The reporting of split-mouth trials in implant dentistry seems to be suboptimal. The endorsement and adherence to the CONSORT extension for the within-person trials checklist by journal editors and investigators could improve reporting quality and transparency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]