-
Progress in Orthodontics Dec 2016The treatment options for the early treatment of anterior open bite are still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the actual available evidence on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The treatment options for the early treatment of anterior open bite are still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the actual available evidence on treatments of anterior open bite in the mixed dentition in order to assess the effectiveness of the early treatment in reducing open bite, the most efficacious treatment strategy and the stability of the results.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature survey was done on November 15, 2015, by means of appropriate Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, VHL, and WEB OF SCIENCE. Randomized clinical trials and studies with a control group (treated or untreated) were then selected by two authors. Trials including patients with syndromes or in the permanent dentition and studies concerning treatment with extractions, full-fixed appliances, or surgery were not considered. Full articles were retrieved for abstracts or titles that met the initial inclusion criteria or lacked sufficient detail for immediate exclusion.
RESULTS
Two thousand five hundred sixty-nine studies about open bite were available; the search strategy selected 240 of them. Twenty-four articles have been judged suitably for the final review, and their relevant data were analyzed.
DISCUSSION
Although this review confirms the effectiveness of early treatment of open bite, particularly when no-compliance strategies are employed, meta-analysis was unfeasible due to lack of standardization, important methodological limitations, and shortcomings of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
A more robust approach to trial design in terms of methodology and error analysis is needed. Besides, more studies with longer periods of follow-up are required.
Topics: Dentition, Mixed; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Malocclusion; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Open Bite; Orthodontic Appliances; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Orthodontics, Corrective; Orthopedic Procedures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27615261
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-016-0142-0 -
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 2018Considering that the available studies on prevalence of malocclusions are local or national-based, this study aimed to pool data to determine the distribution of...
OBJECTIVE
Considering that the available studies on prevalence of malocclusions are local or national-based, this study aimed to pool data to determine the distribution of malocclusion traits worldwide in mixed and permanent dentitions.
METHODS
An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar search engines, to retrieve data on malocclusion prevalence for both mixed and permanent dentitions, up to December 2016.
RESULTS
Out of 2,977 retrieved studies, 53 were included. In permanent dentition, the global distributions of Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusion were 74.7% [31 - 97%], 19.56% [2 - 63%] and 5.93% [1 - 20%], respectively. In mixed dentition, the distributions of these malocclusions were 73% [40 - 96%], 23% [2 - 58%] and 4% [0.7 - 13%]. Regarding vertical malocclusions, the observed deep overbite and open bite were 21.98% and 4.93%, respectively. Posterior crossbite affected 9.39% of the sample. Africans showed the highest prevalence of Class I and open bite in permanent dentition (89% and 8%, respectively), and in mixed dentition (93% and 10%, respectively), while Caucasians showed the highest prevalence of Class II in permanent dentition (23%) and mixed dentition (26%). Class III malocclusion in mixed dentition was highly prevalent among Mongoloids.
CONCLUSION
Worldwide, in mixed and permanent dentitions, Angle Class I malocclusion is more prevalent than Class II, specifically among Africans; the least prevalent was Class III, although higher among Mongoloids in mixed dentition. In vertical dimension, open bite was highest among Mongoloids in mixed dentition. Posterior crossbite was more prevalent in permanent dentition in Europe.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Dental Occlusion, Traumatic; Dentition, Mixed; Dentition, Permanent; Female; Geography; Global Health; Humans; Male; Malocclusion; Malocclusion, Angle Class I; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Malocclusion, Angle Class III; Open Bite; Population; Prevalence; Race Factors
PubMed: 30672991
DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.23.6.40.e1-10.onl -
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2022The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the prevalence of malocclusion and different orthodontic features in children and... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the prevalence of malocclusion and different orthodontic features in children and adolescents.
METHODS
The digital databases PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Open Grey, and Web of Science were searched from inception to November 2021. Epidemiological studies, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and comparative studies involving subjects ≤ 18 years old and focusing on the prevalence of malocclusion and different orthodontic features were selected. Articles written in English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese were included. Three authors independently assessed the eligibility, extracted the data from, and ascertained the quality of the studies. Since all of the included articles were non-randomized, the MINORS tool was used to score the risk of bias.
RESULTS
The initial electronic database search identified a total of 6775 articles. After the removal of duplicates, 4646 articles were screened using the title and abstract. A total of 415 full-text articles were assessed, and 123 articles were finally included for qualitative analysis. The range of prevalence of Angle Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusion was very large, with a mean prevalence of 51.9% (SD 20.7), 23.8% (SD 14.6), and 6.5% (SD 6.5), respectively. As for the prevalence of overjet, reversed overjet, overbite, and open bite, no means were calculated due to the large variation in the definitions, measurements, methodologies, and cut-off points among the studies. The prevalence of anterior crossbite, posterior crossbite, and crossbite with functional shift were 7.8% (SD 6.5), 9.0% (SD 7.34), and 12.2% (SD 7.8), respectively. The prevalence of hypodontia and hyperdontia were reported to be 6.8% (SD 4.2) and 1.8% (SD 1.3), respectively. For impacted teeth, ectopic eruption, and transposition, means of 4.9% (SD 3.7), 5.4% (SD 3.8), and 0.5% (SD 0.5) were found, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
There is an urgent need to clearly define orthodontic features and malocclusion traits as well as to reach consensus on the protocols used to quantify them. The large variety in methodological approaches found in the literature makes the data regarding prevalence of malocclusion unreliable.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Malocclusion; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Orthodontics, Corrective; Overbite; Prevalence
PubMed: 35742703
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19127446 -
European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry Dec 2021The cause-effect relationship between anterior open bite and atypical swallowing, two frequently associated conditions, is currently not completely understood. These...
AIM
The cause-effect relationship between anterior open bite and atypical swallowing, two frequently associated conditions, is currently not completely understood. These conditions are often accompanied by speech disorders and represent a problem for both young patients and untreated adult patients. Treatment of these complex cases may be orthodontic, logopedic therapy or both. The purpose of this review is to compare the various types of treatment to determine their effectiveness in improving skeletal condition, normalisation of muscle activity, and temporal stability.
METHODS
The present systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. In order to find the most appropriate articles for inclusion, an electronic and manual search was performed using PubMed and The Cochrane Library on May 23, 2021. No language restrictions or time limits were applied. Only human studies describing cases of patients in the developmental stage of dentition, i.e., deciduous dentition or mixed dentition with an anterior open bite related to a type of swallowing with tongue interposition between the arches, undergoing three different types of treatment (orthodontic only, myofunctional/logopedic only, combined) were included.
CONCLUSION
The most effective treatment in cases of anterior open bite associated with atypical swallowing is a combination of the traditional orthodontic therapy and myofunctional therapy. Further studies are needed to devise an effective and universal logopaedic protocol to be followed in these cases.
Topics: Deglutition; Humans; Malocclusion; Myofunctional Therapy; Open Bite; Speech Therapy
PubMed: 35034464
DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2021.22.04.5 -
Progress in Orthodontics Mar 2018Non-nutritive sucking habits may adversely affect the orofacial complex. This systematic literature review aimed to find scientific evidence on the effect of pacifier... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Non-nutritive sucking habits may adversely affect the orofacial complex. This systematic literature review aimed to find scientific evidence on the effect of pacifier sucking on orofacial structures.
METHODS
A search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases was conducted to find all pertinent articles published from inception until February 2018, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the risk of bias judgements in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I).
RESULTS
Among the 2288 articles found, 17 articles met the selection criteria: seven prospective cohort studies, nine cross-sectional studies, and one randomized clinical trial. Using ROBINS-I, 12 studies were evaluated to have a serious overall risk of bias and five, a moderate one. These studies claimed a strong association between a pacifier sucking habit and the presence of an anterior open bite and posterior crossbite. Functional/orthodontic pacifiers were shown to cause significantly less open bites than the conventional ones.
CONCLUSIONS
High level of evidence of the effect of sucking habits on orofacial structures is missing. The available studies show severe or moderate risk of bias; hence, the findings in the literature need to be very carefully evaluated. There is moderate evidence that the use of pacifier is associated with anterior open bite and posterior crossbite, thus affecting the harmonious development of orofacial structures. Functional/orthodontic pacifiers reduce the prevalence of open bite when compared to the conventional ones, but evidence is needed concerning the effects on posterior crossbite. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to further analyze the effects of functional/orthodontic and conventional pacifiers on orofacial structures.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Malocclusion; Maxillofacial Development; Open Bite; Pacifiers; Sucking Behavior
PubMed: 29532184
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-018-0206-4 -
Progress in Orthodontics Sep 2020The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the degree of stability of anterior open bite (AOB) treatment performed through the molar intrusion... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the degree of stability of anterior open bite (AOB) treatment performed through the molar intrusion supported with skeletal anchorage at least 1 year posttreatment.
METHODS
This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016037513). A literature search was conducted to identify randomized (RCT) or non-randomized clinical trials based including those considering before and after design. Data sources were electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Scopus, Lilacs, OpenGrey, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov . The quality of evidence was assessed through the JBI tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated through the GRADE tool. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate.
RESULTS
Six hundred twenty-four articles met the initial inclusion criteria. From these, only 6 remained. The mean posttreatment follow-up time was 2.5 years (SD = 1.04). The overbite showed a standardized mean relapse of - 1.23 mm (95% CI - 1.64, - 0.81, p < 0.0001). Maxillary and mandibular incisors presented a non-significant mean relapse, U1-PP - 0.04 mm (95% CI - 0.55, 0.48) and L1-MP - 0.10 mm (95% CI - 0.57, 0.37). Molar intrusion showed a relapse rate around 12% for the maxillary molars and a 27.2% for mandibular molars.
CONCLUSION
The stability of AOB through molar intrusion using TADs can be considered relatively similar to that reported to surgical approaches, since 10 to 30% of relapse occurs both in maxillary and mandibular molars. The level of certainty ranged between very low and low. RCTs reporting dropout during the follow-up are in dire need.
Topics: Cephalometry; Humans; Maxilla; Molar; Open Bite; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 32888097
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-020-00328-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Comforting behaviours, such as the use of pacifiers (dummies, soothers), blankets and finger or thumb sucking, are common in babies and young children. These comforting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Comforting behaviours, such as the use of pacifiers (dummies, soothers), blankets and finger or thumb sucking, are common in babies and young children. These comforting habits, which can be referred to collectively as 'non-nutritive sucking habits' (NNSHs), tend to stop as children get older, under their own impetus or with support from parents and carers. However, if the habit continues whilst the permanent dentition is becoming established, it can contribute to, or cause, development of a malocclusion (abnormal bite). A diverse variety of approaches has been used to help children with stopping a NNSH. These include advice, removal of the comforting object, fitting an orthodontic appliance to interfere with the habit, application of an aversive taste to the digit or behaviour modification techniques. Some of these interventions are easier to apply than others and less disturbing for the child and their parent; some are more applicable to a particular type of habit.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the review was to evaluate the effects of different interventions for cessation of NNSHs in children. The secondary objectives were to determine which interventions work most quickly and are the most effective in terms of child and parent- or carer-centred outcomes of least discomfort and psychological distress from the intervention, as well as the dental measures of malocclusion (reduction in anterior open bite, overjet and correction of posterior crossbite) and cost-effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 8 October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 8 October 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014), PsycINFO via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 8 October 2014), the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (Clinical Trials.gov) (to 8 October 2014) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 8 October 2014). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We screened reference lists from relevant articles and contacted authors of eligible studies for further information where necessary.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in children with a non-nutritive sucking habit that compared one intervention with another intervention or a no-intervention control group. The primary outcome of interest was cessation of the habit.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Three review authors were involved in screening the records identified; two undertook data extraction, two assessed risk of bias and two assessed overall quality of the evidence base. Most of the data could not be combined and only one meta-analysis could be carried out.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six trials, which recruited 252 children (aged two and a half to 18 years), but presented follow-up data on only 246 children. Digit sucking was the only NNSH assessed in the studies. Five studies compared single or multiple interventions with a no-intervention or waiting list control group and one study made a head-to-head comparison. All the studies were at high risk of bias due to major limitations in methodology and reporting. There were small numbers of participants in the studies (20 to 38 participants per study) and follow-up times ranged from one to 36 months. Short-term outcomes were observed under one year post intervention and long-term outcomes were observed at one year or more post intervention. Orthodontics appliance (with or without psychological intervention) versus no treatmentTwo trials that assessed this comparison evaluated our primary outcome of cessation of habit. One of the trials evaluated palatal crib and one used a mix of palatal cribs and arches. Both trials were at high risk of bias. The orthodontic appliance was more likely to stop digit sucking than no treatment, whether it was used over the short term (risk ratio (RR) 6.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 25.53; two trials, 70 participants) or long term (RR 5.81, 95% CI 1.49 to 22.66; one trial, 37 participants) or used in combination with a psychological intervention (RR 6.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 41.96; one trial, 32 participants). Psychological intervention versus no treatmentTwo trials (78 participants) at high risk of bias evaluated positive reinforcement (alone or in combination with gaining the child's co-operation) or negative reinforcement compared with no treatment. Pooling of data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions in the short term (RR 6.16, 95% CI 1.18 to 32.10; I(2) = 0%). One study, with data from 57 participants, reported on the long-term effect of positive and negative reinforcement on sucking cessation and found a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions (RR 6.25, 95% CI 1.65 to 23.65). Head-to-head comparisonsOnly one trial demonstrated a clear difference in effectiveness between different active interventions. This trial, which had only 22 participants, found a higher likelihood of cessation of habit with palatal crib than palatal arch (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.59).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found low quality evidence that orthodontic appliances (palatal arch and palatal crib) and psychological interventions (including positive and negative reinforcement) are effective at improving sucking cessation in children. There is very low quality evidence that palatal crib is more effective than palatal arch. This review has highlighted the need for high quality trials evaluating interventions to stop non-nutritive sucking habits to be conducted and the need for a consolidated, standardised approach to reporting outcomes in these trials.
Topics: Adolescent; Bedding and Linens; Child; Child, Preschool; Fingersucking; Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Appliances; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional; Pacifiers; Reinforcement, Psychology; Stress, Psychological; Sucking Behavior
PubMed: 25825863
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008694.pub2 -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research Nov 2018The aim of this review was to evaluate available evidence on the effect of early orthodontic management and myofunctional treatment in the developing dentition children,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effect of orthodontic management and orofacial muscle training protocols on the correction of myofunctional and myoskeletal problems in developing dentition. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
The aim of this review was to evaluate available evidence on the effect of early orthodontic management and myofunctional treatment in the developing dentition children, on anterior open bite correction, as well as on normalization of patterns of mouth breathing, swallowing and tongue resting position and pressure. Electronic searches in MEDLINE, Cochrane and LILACS, without language restrictions were conducted. Additionally, unpublished literature was identified. Randomized controlled trials, or controlled clinical trials, comparing interventions applied to manage anterior open bite and other muscle functions such as breathing/swallowing pattern and tongue resting position and pressure, were considered. Quality assessment was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to assess treatment effects. From the 265 initial search results, 15 articles were included in the review. Eight were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 were controlled clinical trials. Treatment outcomes comprised skeletal and dentoalveolar changes recorded cephalometrically, mouth posture and lip closure normalization, improvement of tongue resting position/pressure and modification of swallowing pattern. Quantitative synthesis was possible for only 2 of the included RCTs. There was no evidence to support bonded lingual spurs over banded fixed appliances for the correction of anterior open bite in mixed dentition children presenting nonnutritive oral habits at the onset of treatment (SMD: -0.03; 95%CI: -.81, 0.74; P = 0.94). Although early orthodontic management and myofunctional treatment in the deciduous and mixed dentition children appears to be a promising approach, the quality of the existing evidence is questionable.
Topics: Humans; Cephalometry; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Databases, Factual; Deglutition; Dentition, Mixed; Facial Muscles; Malocclusion; Mouth Breathing; Myofunctional Therapy; Open Bite; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tongue; Tooth, Deciduous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30152171
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12240 -
Progress in Orthodontics Jun 2023The etiology of open bite is complex, involving various genetic or environmental factors. Several treatment alternatives have been suggested for the correction of open... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The etiology of open bite is complex, involving various genetic or environmental factors. Several treatment alternatives have been suggested for the correction of open bite, yet their long-term effectiveness remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the long-term effectiveness of open-bite treatment in treated with non-surgical approaches versus untreated patients, through lateral cephalometric radiographs.
SEARCH METHODS
Unrestricted search of 16 electronic databases and manual searches up to November 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized or non-randomized controlled trials reporting on the long-term effects of open-bite treatment through angular lateral cephalometric variables.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Only angular variables on lateral cephalometric radiographs were considered as primary outcomes. For each outcome, the mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model to consider existing heterogeneity. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (R.o.B. 2.0) and the risk-of-bias tool for non-randomized studies for interventions (ROBINS-I) were utilized for the randomized and non-randomized trials, respectively.
RESULTS
From the initially identified 26,527 hits, only 6 studies (1 randomized and 5 retrospective controlled trials) were finally included in this systematic review reporting on 244 open-bite individuals (134 patients and 110 untreated controls), while five of them were included in the meta-analyses, assessing either the interval ranging from treatment start to post-retention (T3-T1) or from end of treatment to post-retention period (T3-T2). Regarding the vertical plane, for the T3-T2 interval, no significant differences were found for the assessed skeletal measurements, indicating a relative stability of the treatment results. Similarly, with regard to the T3-T1 interval, no significant differences could be identified for the examined skeletal variables, implying that the produced effects are rather minimal and that the correction of the open bite was performed mainly through dentoalveolar rather than skeletal changes. Further, no significant changes could be identified regarding the inclination of the upper and lower incisors. Only the nasolabial angle was significantly reduced in the treated patients in the long term.
CONCLUSIONS
According to existing evidence, the influence of non-surgical treatment of open bite on the skeletal tissues and the inclination of the incisors is rather minimal in the long term, while only the nasolabial angle was significantly reduced.
Topics: Humans; Open Bite; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Cephalometry; Incisor
PubMed: 37258750
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-023-00467-2 -
International Orthodontics Dec 2023The aim of this systematic review (Prospero CRD42022323188) is to investigate whether an association exists in patients with amelogenesis imperfecta (AI) between...
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this systematic review (Prospero CRD42022323188) is to investigate whether an association exists in patients with amelogenesis imperfecta (AI) between occlusal characteristics and genotype on the one hand and enamel structural phenotype on the other.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Reports up to May 2023 assessing occlusion of individuals with AI were browsed in a systematic search using Medline, Embase, ISI Web of Science, and the grey literature. Randomised control trials, case control studies, and case series specifying both occlusion, assessed by cephalometric or clinical analysis, and genotype or dental phenotype in patients with AI were included without any age limitation. Two authors independently selected the publications and extracted the data in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The risk of bias was assessed with the Critical Appraisal Checklists from the Johanna Briggs Institute.
RESULTS
Twenty-five articles were chosen from the 261 results. Most of the included publications were case series (n=22) and case control studies (n=3). Thirteen studies reported both a genotype (ENAM, FAM83H, FAM20A, DLX3, CNMM4, WDR72) and occlusal diagnostic. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate. All AI phenotypes showed an open bite (OB) rate around 35%, except mixed form. The other malocclusions were not often mentioned. No correlation between occlusal phenotype and genotype or AI phenotype could be identified in patients with AI, as most studies had short occlusal descriptions and small sample sizes.
CONCLUSION
OB malocclusions were more frequently reported in AI. This review highlighted the need for a more accurate description of orofacial features associated with AI, to better clarify the role of amelogenesis genes in the regulation of craniofacial morphogenesis and identify patients requiring orthognathic surgery at an early stage.
Topics: Humans; Amelogenesis Imperfecta; Genotype; Phenotype; Dental Enamel; Malocclusion; Open Bite; Proteins
PubMed: 37494776
DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2023.100789