-
Dental and Medical Problems 2022External apical root resorption (EARR) is a serious complication that should be avoided during orthodontic treatment; this pathology depends on multiple factors. Data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
External apical root resorption (EARR) is a serious complication that should be avoided during orthodontic treatment; this pathology depends on multiple factors. Data from clinical studies should be assessed to determine the influence these factors have on the development of EARR. This systematic review aims to compare EARR produced by different factors (orthodontic systems, dental trauma, and dental vitality). The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database. The search was performed on 5 databases. Accepted study designs included randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized clinical trials, and observational studies. Full-text articles from clinical studies of EARR associated with orthodontic treatment in English, Spanish, or Portuguese with no publication date restrictions were selected. Data from the studies, such as age, population, study groups, and outcome measures, were recorded. Multiple meta-analyses were performed with data from the included studies. Evidence suggests that EARR induced by orthodontic treatment is similar, regardless of the technique used. Evidence of the effect of previous dental trauma on EARR during orthodontic treatment is limited. There is less EARR associated with orthodontic treatment in endodontically treated teeth than in vital teeth. These conclusions should be considered with caution due to the low certainty of the evidence.
Topics: Humans; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Root Resorption; Tooth, Nonvital; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36206494
DOI: 10.17219/dmp/145369 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Crowded teeth develop when there is not enough space in the jaws into which the teeth can erupt. Crowding can affect baby teeth (deciduous dentititon), adult teeth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Crowded teeth develop when there is not enough space in the jaws into which the teeth can erupt. Crowding can affect baby teeth (deciduous dentititon), adult teeth (permanent dentition), or both, and is a common reason for referral to an orthodontist. Crowded teeth can affect a child's self-esteem and quality of life. Early loss of baby teeth as a result of tooth decay or trauma, can lead to crowded permanent teeth. Crowding tends to increase with age, especially in the lower jaw.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of orthodontic intervention for preventing or correcting crowded teeth in children. To test the null hypothesis that there are no differences in outcomes between different orthodontic interventions for preventing or correcting crowded teeth in children.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 11 January 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any active interventions to prevent or correct dental crowding in children and adolescents, such as orthodontic braces or extractions, compared to no or delayed treatment, placebo treatment or another active intervention. The studies had to include at least 80% of participants aged 16 years and under.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors, independently and in duplicate, extracted information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms and results. We resolved any disagreements by liaising with a third review author. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We calculated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We undertook meta-analysis when studies of similar comparisons reported comparable outcome measures, using the random-effects model. We used the I statistic as a measure of statistical heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search identified 24 RCTs that included 1512 participants, 1314 of whom were included in analyses. We assessed 23 studies as being at high risk of bias and one as unclear. The studies investigated 17 comparisons. Twenty studies evaluated fixed appliances and auxiliaries (lower lingual arch, lower lip bumper, brackets, archwires, lacebacks, headgear and adjunctive vibrational appliances); two studies evaluated removable appliances and auxiliaries (Schwarz appliance, eruption guidance appliance); and two studies evaluated dental extractions (lower deciduous canines or third molars). The evidence should be interpreted cautiously as it is of very low certainty. Most interventions were evaluated by a single study. Fixed appliances and auxiliaries One study found that use of a lip bumper may reduce crowding in the early permanent dentition (MD -4.39 mm, 95% CI -5.07 to -3.71; 34 participants). One study evaluated lower lingual arch but did not measure amount of crowding. One study concluded that coaxial nickel-titanium (NiTi) archwires may cause more tooth movement in the lower arch than single-stranded NiTi archwires (MD 6.77 mm, 95% CI 5.55 to 7.99; 24 participants). Another study, comparing copper NiTi versus NiTi archwires, found NiTi to be more effective for reducing crowding (MD 0.49 mm, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63, 66 participants). Single studies did not show evidence of one type of archwire being better than another for Titinol versus Nitinol; nickel-titanium versus stainless steel or multistrand stainless steel; and multistranded stainless steel versus stainless steel. Nor did single studies find evidence of a difference in amount of crowding between self-ligating and conventional brackets, active and passive self-ligating brackets, lacebacks added to fixed appliances versus fixed appliances alone, or cervical pull headgear versus minor interceptive procedures. Meta-analysis of two studies showed no evidence that adding vibrational appliances to fixed appliances reduces crowding at 8 to 10 weeks (MD 0.24 mm, 95% CI -0.81 to 1.30; 119 participants). Removable appliances and auxiliaries One study found use of the Schwarz appliance may be effective at treating dental crowding in the lower arch (MD -2.14 mm, 95% CI -2.79 to -1.49; 28 participants). Another study found an eruption guidance appliance may reduce the number of children with crowded teeth after one year of treatment (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.68; 46 participants); however, this may have been due to an increase in lower incisor proclination in the treated group. Whether these gains were maintained in the longer term was not assessed. Dental extractions One study found that extracting children's lower deciduous canines had more effect on crowding after one year than no treatment (MD -4.76 mm, 95 CI -6.24 to -3.28; 83 participants), but this was alongside a reduction in arch length. One study found that extracting wisdom teeth did not seem to reduce crowding any more than leaving them in the mouth (MD -0.30 mm, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.70; 77 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most interventions were assessed by single, small studies. We found very low-certainty evidence that lip bumper, used in the mixed dentition, may be effective for preventing crowding in the early permanent dentition, and a Schwarz appliance may reduce crowding in the lower arch. We also found very low-certainty evidence that coaxial NiTi may be better at reducing crowding than single-stranded NiTi, and that NiTi may be better than copper NiTi. As the current evidence is of very low certainty, our findings may change with future research.
Topics: Adolescent; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets
PubMed: 34970995
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003453.pub2 -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research Aug 2017The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the orthodontic literature with regard to efficiency, effectiveness and stability of treatment outcome... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the orthodontic literature with regard to efficiency, effectiveness and stability of treatment outcome with clear aligners compared with treatment with conventional brackets.
METHODS
An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in October 2014 in the following electronic databases: Google Scholar, the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, Scopus, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID and Web of Science. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. Quality assessment of the included articles was performed. Two authors were responsible for study selection, validity assessment and data extraction.
RESULTS
Four controlled clinical trials including a total of 252 participants satisfied the inclusion criteria. We grouped the trials into four main comparisons. One randomized controlled trial was classified as level 1B evidence, and three cohort studies were classified as level 2B evidence. Clear aligners appear to have a significant advantage with regard to chair time and treatment duration in mild-to-moderate cases based on several cross-sectional studies. No other differences in stability and occlusal characteristics after treatment were found between the two systems.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite claims about the effectiveness of clear aligners, evidence is generally lacking. Shortened treatment duration and chair time in mild-to-moderate cases appear to be the only significant effectiveness of clear aligners over conventional systems that are supported by the current evidence.
Topics: Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontics, Corrective; Tooth Migration; Tooth Movement Techniques; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28547915
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12177 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Without a phase of retention after successful orthodontic treatment, teeth tend to 'relapse', that is, to return to their initial position. Retention is achieved by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Without a phase of retention after successful orthodontic treatment, teeth tend to 'relapse', that is, to return to their initial position. Retention is achieved by fitting fixed or removable retainers to provide stability to the teeth while avoiding damage to teeth and gums. Removable retainers can be worn full- or part-time. Retainers vary in shape, material, and the way they are made. Adjunctive procedures are sometimes used to try to improve retention, for example, reshaping teeth where they contact ('interproximal reduction'), or cutting fibres around teeth ('percision'). This review is an update of one originally published in 2004 and last updated in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of different retainers and retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and OpenGrey up to 27 April 2022 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adults who had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces. We excluded studies with aligners.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Outcomes were stability or relapse of tooth position, retainer failure (i.e. broken, detached, worn out, ill-fitting or lost), adverse effects on teeth and gums (i.e. plaque, gingival and bleeding indices), and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous data, risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data, and hazard ratios (HR) for survival data, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses when similar studies reported outcomes at the same time point; otherwise results were reported as mean ranges. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index (crookedness of anterior teeth) to measure relapse, judging the minimum important difference to be 1 mm.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 studies, with 4377 participants. The studies evaluated: removable versus fixed retainers (8 studies); different types of fixed retainers (22 studies) or bonding materials (3 studies); and different types of removable retainers (16 studies). Four studies evaluated more than one comparison. We judged 28 studies to have high risk of bias, 11 to have low risk, and eight studies as unclear. We focused on 12-month follow-up. The evidence is low or very low certainty. Most comparisons and outcomes were evaluated in only one study at high risk of bias, and most studies measured outcomes after less than a year. Removable versus fixed retainers Removable (part-time) versus fixed One study reported that participants wearing clear plastic retainers part-time in the lower arch had more relapse than participants with multistrand fixed retainers, but the amount was not clinically significant (Little's Irregularity Index (LII) MD 0.92 mm, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.61; 56 participants). Removable retainers were more likely to cause discomfort (RR 12.22; 95% CI 1.69 to 88.52; 57 participants), but were associated with less retainer failure (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.98; 57 participants) and better periodontal health (Gingival Index (GI) MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.02; 59 participants). Removable (full-time) versus fixed One study reported that removable clear plastic retainers worn full-time in the lower arch did not provide any clinically significant benefit for tooth stability over fixed retainers (LII MD 0.60 mm, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.03; 84 participants). Participants with clear plastic retainers had better periodontal health (gingival bleeding RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; 84 participants), but higher risk of retainer failure (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.38 to 8.47; 77 participants). The study found no difference between retainers for caries. Different types of fixed retainers Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) nitinol versus conventional/analogue multistrand One study reported that CAD/CAM nitinol fixed retainers were better for tooth stability, but the difference was not clinically significant (LII MD -0.46 mm, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.21; 66 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between retainers for periodontal health (GI MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 2 studies, 107 participants), or retainer survival (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.49; 1 study, 41 participants). Fibre-reinforced composite versus conventional multistrand/spiral wire One study reported that fibre-reinforced composite fixed retainers provided better stability than multistrand retainers, but this was not of a clinically significant amount (LII MD -0.70 mm, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.23; 52 participants). The fibre-reinforced retainers had better patient satisfaction with aesthetics (MD 1.49 cm on a visual analogue scale, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.22; 1 study, 32 participants), and similar retainer survival rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; 7 studies; 1337 participants) at 12 months. However, failures occurred earlier (MD -1.48 months, 95% CI -1.88 to -1.08; 2 studies, 103 participants; 24-month follow-up) and more gingival inflammation at six months, though bleeding on probing (BoP) was similar (GI MD 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; BoP MD 0.33, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.79; 1 study, 40 participants). Different types of removable retainers Clear plastic versus Hawley When worn in the lower arch for six months full-time and six months part-time, clear plastic provided similar stability to Hawley retainers (LII MD 0.01 mm, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.67; 1 study, 30 participants). Hawley retainers had lower risk of failure (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83; 1 study, 111 participants), but were less comfortable at six months (VAS MD -1.86 cm, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.53; 1 study, 86 participants). Part-time versus full-time wear of Hawley There was no evidence of a difference in stability between part-time and full-time use of Hawley retainers (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.68; 1 study, 52 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is low to very low certainty, so we cannot draw firm conclusions about any one approach to retention over another. More high-quality studies are needed that measure tooth stability over at least two years, and measure how long retainers last, patient satisfaction and negative side effects from wearing retainers, such as tooth decay and gum disease.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Dental Care; Gingivitis; Periodontal Diseases; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37219527
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002283.pub5 -
Orthodontic bracket bonding techniques and adhesion failures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of Clinical and Experimental... Sep 2022This systematic review compared the bonding failures of orthodontic brackets bonded by indirect or direct techniques. Data sources: The searched databases were Cochrane... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review compared the bonding failures of orthodontic brackets bonded by indirect or direct techniques. Data sources: The searched databases were Cochrane Library, LILACS, BBO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search for randomized clinical trials comparing the two techniques was carried out to answer the research question: When considering orthodontic bracket bonding on permanent teeth, does the indirect technique reduce the number of bonding failures compared to the direct one over time? The quality of the included papers was assessed with Cochrane risk of bias tool and the quality of evidence with GRADE.
RESULTS
From 3096 articles identified, seven were included in the systematic review (five at unclear; two at low risk of bias). Meta-analysis was carried out according to the follow-up periods (0-6 months and 12-15 months).
RESULTS
In the first period, bonding techniques were similar with regard to adhesion failures (RR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.10-3.62; = 0.00001; I2 = 92%); in the 12-to-15-month period, the direct bonding technique proved to be superior (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.05 - 1.99; = 0.41; I2 = 0%). The quality of evidence was classified as low for the 0-6 months follow-up and high for the 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the absence of heterogeneity and the high quality of evidence, it is concluded that the direct bracket bonding technique has a lower failure rate than the indirect technique in the long term (12-15 months). Orthodontic brackets, fixed orthodontics, systematic review.
PubMed: 36158772
DOI: 10.4317/jced.59768 -
International Orthodontics Mar 2017Root resorption is one of the leading problems in orthodontic treatment. Most earlier studies have assessed the incidence and severity of root resorption following... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Root resorption is one of the leading problems in orthodontic treatment. Most earlier studies have assessed the incidence and severity of root resorption following orthodontic treatment using fixed appliances as well as associated factors. However, few studies have assessed these parameters in the context of orthodontic treatment using thermoplastic splints or aligners. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the incidence and severity of root resorption following orthodontic treatment using aligners and associated factors. A comparative analysis was also made with fixed multi-bracket treatments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The data bases consulted were: Medline, Embase, EBSCO Host, Cochrane Library and Science Direct. Our search included meta-analyses, randomized and non-randomized controled trials, cohort studies and descriptive studies published before December 2015 and evidencing a connection with the incidence and severity of root resorption following orthodontic treatment using aligners alone or compared with fixed multi-bracket treatments.
RESULTS
Among the 93 selected references, only 3 studies met our selection criteria. The incidence of root resorption ranged between 0 and 46%, of which 6% were severe cases. Relative to fixed multi-bracket non-extraction treatments to correct the same malocclusions, the incidence of resorption ranged between 2% and 50%, of which 22% were severe cases. In both techniques, the incidence of resorption was higher for the maxillary incisors and was not influenced by either age or sex.
CONCLUSION
In malocclusion cases not requiring extractions, orthodontic aligner treatment is possibly associated with a lower incidence of resorption than fixed multi-bracket treatment. Further research encompassing extraction cases is needed to better assess the incidence and severity of root resorption following the use of these removable appliances.
Topics: Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Appliances; Orthodontic Brackets; Root Resorption
PubMed: 28131611
DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2016.12.019 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Bonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment which increases operator chairside time and lengthens treatment time. A prolonged treatment is likely to increase the oral health risks of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances one of which is irreversible enamel decalcification. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2003. A new full search was conducted on 26 September 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane Review remain the same.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 September 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing two different adhesive groups. Participants were patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. The interventions were adhesives that bonded stainless steel brackets to all teeth except the molars. The primary outcome was debond or bracket failure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were recorded on decalcification as a secondary outcome, if present. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted in duplicate by pairs of review authors. Since the data were not presented in a form that was amenable to meta-analysis, the results of the review are presented in narrative form only.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. A chemical cured composite was compared with a light cured composite (one trial), a conventional glass ionomer cement (one trial) and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (one trial). The quality of the trial reports was generally poor.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no clear evidence on which to make a clinical decision of the type of orthodontic adhesive to use.
Topics: Compomers; Decalcification, Pathologic; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29630138
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002282.pub2 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2022Before the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination fixed orthodontic devices, such as brackets and wires, cause challenges not only for the orthodontist but also...
BACKGROUND
Before the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination fixed orthodontic devices, such as brackets and wires, cause challenges not only for the orthodontist but also for the radiologist. Essentially, the MRI-safe scan of the fixed orthodontic tools requires a proper guideline in clinical practice. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to examine all aspects of MRI-safe scan, including artifact, thermal, and debonding effects, to identify any existing gaps in knowledge in this regard and develop an evidence-based protocol.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement was used in this study. The clinical question in "PIO" format was: "Does MRI examination influence the temperature of the orthodontic devices, the size of artifacts, and the debonding force in patients who have fixed orthodontic bracket and/or wire?" The search process was carried out in PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. The search resulted in 1310 articles. After selection according to the eligibility criteria, 18 studies were analyzed by two reviewers. The risk of bias was determined using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool.
RESULTS
Out of the eligible 18 studies, 10 articles examined the heating effect, 6 were about the debonding effect, and 11 measured the size of artifact regarding brackets and wires. Considering the quality assessment, the overall levels of evidence were high and medium. The published studies showed that heating and debonding effects during MRI exposure were not hazardous for patients. As some wires revealed higher temperature changes, it is suggested to remove the wire or insert a spacer between the appliances and the oral mucosa. Based on the material, ceramic and plastic brackets caused no relevant artifact and were MRI-safe. Stainless steel brackets and wires resulted in susceptibility artifacts in the orofacial region and could cause distortion in the frontal lobe, orbits, and pituitary gland. The retainer wires showed no relevant artifact.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the thermal and debonding effects of the fixed orthodontic brackets and wires were irrelevant or resoluble; however, the size of the artifacts was clinically relevant and determined most significantly the feasibility of fixed brackets and wires in MRI examination.
Topics: Artifacts; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Stainless Steel
PubMed: 35854295
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02317-9 -
Bracket Transfer Accuracy with the Indirect Bonding Technique-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2022To investigate the bracket transfer accuracy of the indirect bonding technique (IDB). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To investigate the bracket transfer accuracy of the indirect bonding technique (IDB).
METHODS
Systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus through November 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
In vivo and ex vivo studies investigating bracket transfer accuracy by comparing the planned and achieved bracket positions using the IDB technique were considered. Information concerning patients, samples, and applied methodology was collected. Measured mean transfer errors (MTE) for angular and linear directions were extracted. Risk of bias (RoB) in the studies was assessed using a tailored RoB tool. Meta-analysis of ex vivo studies was performed for overall linear and angular bracket transfer accuracy and for subgroup analyses by type of tray, tooth groups, jaw-related, side-related, and by assessment method.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. The overall linear mean transfer errors (MTE) in mesiodistal, vertical and buccolingual direction were 0.08 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.10), 0.09 mm (0.06; 0.11), 0.14 mm (0.10; 0.17), respectively. The overall angular mean transfer errors (MTE) regarding angulation, rotation, torque were 1.13° (0.75; 1.52), 0.93° (0.49; 1.37), and 1.11° (0.68; 1.53), respectively. Silicone trays showed the highest accuracy, followed by vacuum-formed trays and 3D printed trays. Subgroup analyses between tooth groups, right and left sides, and upper and lower jaw showed minor differences.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The overall accuracy of the indirect bonding technique can be considered clinically acceptable. Future studies should address the validation of the accuracy assessment methods used.
PubMed: 35566695
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092568 -
Cureus Sep 2023The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of orthodontic treatment using clear aligner therapy (CAT). This efficiency was measured using the Peer... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of orthodontic treatment using clear aligner therapy (CAT). This efficiency was measured using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index, the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) index, or the similarity between the final ClinCheck and the final scanned models. A search was done electronically between 1998 and 2021 using the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. Three reviewers individually rated the articles. The ROBINS tool and the Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to evaluate the quality of observational research and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The degree of certainty for each selected outcome was evaluated using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.Six studies with a total of 166 participants were considered after the full texts of 61 potential reports were reviewed. This research included in the review covered the period from 1998 to 2021 in retrospect. According to the current systematic review and meta-analysis, transparent aligners had a successful outcome. In mild to moderate cases, aligner treatment appears to have a significant advantage in terms of efficiency (treatment time); nonetheless, insufficient evidence of efficacy was observed based on multiple cross-sectional investigations. When compared to traditional brackets, clear aligners provided a more stable course of treatment.
PubMed: 37842499
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.45072