-
Turkish Journal of Orthodontics Sep 2023This systematic review aimed to assess salivary flow and pH changes at various stages of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. A comprehensive searches in...
This systematic review aimed to assess salivary flow and pH changes at various stages of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. A comprehensive searches in electronic databases, including Medline, ResearchGate, Web of Science, SAGE Journals, Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, and ScienceDirect, without any publication date restrictions until January 2022 was conducted. The Pre-ferred Reporting Items for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA 2020 version) protocol was adopted and the risk of bias assessments were performed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. Out of 4902 articles, 25 were fully evaluated, and seven studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review. The results showed that orthodontic treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances increased the stimulated salivary flow rate during various stages of treatment. However, the unstimulated salivary flow rate showed different changes. Furthermore, stimulated salivary pH increased, whereas unstimulated salivary pH significantly decreased, depending on the specific period of orthodontic treatment. Overall, fixed orthodontic appliances have an impact on salivary flow rate and pH during different stages of treatment. Nevertheless, the current literature is insufficient to draw definitive conclusions. More well-designedrandomized studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm these findings.
PubMed: 37782023
DOI: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2022.66 -
BMC Oral Health Nov 2016The aim of this study was to compare the external apical root resorption (EARR) in patients receiving fixed orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to compare the external apical root resorption (EARR) in patients receiving fixed orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets.
METHODS
Studies comparing the EARR between orthodontic patients using self-ligating or conventional brackets were identified through electronic search in databases including CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and SIGLE, and manual search in relevant journals and reference lists of the included studies until Apr 2016. The extraction of data and risk of bias evaluation were conducted by two investigators independently. The original outcome underwent statistical pooling by using Review Manager 5.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included in the systematic review, out of which, five studies were statistically pooled in meta-analysis. The value of EARR of maxillary central incisors in the self-ligating bracket group was significantly lower than that in the conventional bracket group (SMD -0.31; 95% CI: -0.60--0.01). No significant differences in other incisors were observed between self-ligating and conventional brackets.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidences suggest self-ligating brackets do not outperform conventional brackets in reducing the EARR in maxillary lateral incisors, mandible central incisors and mandible lateral incisors. However, self-ligating brackets appear to have an advantage in protecting maxillary central incisor from EARR, which still needs to be confirmed by more high-quality studies.
Topics: Humans; Incisor; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Root Resorption
PubMed: 27871255
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-016-0320-y -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research Feb 2016Antimicrobial orthodontic adhesives aim to reduce white spot lesions' incidence in orthodontic patients, but they should not jeopardizing its properties. Systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Antimicrobial orthodontic adhesives aim to reduce white spot lesions' incidence in orthodontic patients, but they should not jeopardizing its properties. Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to answer the question whether the association of antimicrobial agents with orthodontic adhesives compromises its mechanical properties and whether there is a superior antimicrobial agent. PubMed and Scopus databases. In vitro studies comparing shear bond strength of conventional photo-activated orthodontic adhesives to antimicrobial photo-activated orthodontic adhesives were considered eligible. Search terms included the following: orthodontics, orthodontic, antimicrobial, antibacterial, bactericidal, adhesive, resin, resin composite, bonding agent, bonding system, and bond strength. The searches yielded 494 citations, which turned into 467 after duplicates were discarded. Titles and abstracts were read and 13 publications were selected for full-text reading. Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. The global analysis showed no statistically significant difference between control and experimental groups. In the subgroup analysis, only the chlorhexidine subgroup showed a statistically significant difference, where the control groups had higher bond strength than the experimental groups. Many studies on in vitro orthodontic bond strength fail to report test conditions that could affect their outcomes. The pooled in vitro data suggest that adding an antimicrobial agent to an orthodontic adhesive system does not influence bond strength to enamel. It is not possible to state which antimicrobial agent is better to be associated.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Enamel; Dental Stress Analysis; Humans; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Brackets; Resin Cements; Shear Strength
PubMed: 26257400
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12100 -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research May 2023The aim of this systematic review was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to human teeth with and without enamel fluorosis (EF) using... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to human teeth with and without fluorotic enamel: A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental in vitro studies.
The aim of this systematic review was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to human teeth with and without enamel fluorosis (EF) using conventional bonding interventions/techniques. An unrestricted search of indexed databases was performed with the following eligibility criteria: (a) human fluorotic teeth (experimental-group); (b) human teeth without fluorosis (control-group); (c) studies using phosphoric acid (PA) etching without air abrasion (AA), PA etching combined with AA, and application of self-etching primer (SEP) alone as bonding interventions/techniques and (d) measuring SBS in megapascals (MPa). Data screening, selection and extraction were performed by two reviewers. The risk of bias (rob) was assessed using the JBI Critical appraisal tool for Quasi-Experimental Studies. Meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model. The quality of available evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Ten in vitro studies were included. Subgroup analyses were performed for each intervention type. The SBS was significantly lower in fluorotic teeth when PA was used without AA (mean difference = 3.26 MPa, confidence interval: [1.00, 5.52]); and there were no significant differences for the PA combined with AA and SEP interventions. All studies had a low rob. The overall level of evidence was at best low. The SBS is lower in teeth with EF when traditional PA is used. No significant differences were found in SBS between teeth with and without EF when PA is used with AA or when SEP is used alone.
Topics: Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Air Abrasion, Dental; Dental Bonding; Resin Cements; Surface Properties; Acid Etching, Dental; Dental Enamel; Fluorosis, Dental; Shear Strength; Materials Testing; Dental Stress Analysis
PubMed: 35960660
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12602 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Initial arch wires are the first arch wires to be inserted into the fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment and are used mainly for the alignment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Initial arch wires are the first arch wires to be inserted into the fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment and are used mainly for the alignment of teeth by correcting crowding and rotations. With a number of different types of orthodontic arch wires available for initial tooth alignment, it is important to understand which wire is most efficient, as well as which wires cause least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. This is an update of the review entitledInitial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, which was first published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of initial arch wires for the alignment of teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, in terms of the rate of tooth alignment, amount of root resorption accompanying tooth movement, and intensity of pain experienced by patients during the initial alignment stage of treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 October 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 October 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 5 October 2017. The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (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
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initial arch wires to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. We included only studies involving participants with upper or lower, or both, full arch fixed orthodontic appliances.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors were responsible for study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors. We contacted corresponding authors of included studies to obtain missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we found three new RCTs (228 participants), bringing the total to 12 RCTs with 799 participants. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias, and three to be at low risk of bias; six were unclear. None of the studies reported the adverse outcome of root resorption. The review assessed six comparisons.1. Multistrand stainless steel versus superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) arch wires. There were five studies in this group and it was appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of two of them. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and superelastic NiTi arch wires (mean difference (MD) -7.5 mm per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.27 to 11.27; 1 study, 48 participants; low-quality evidence). The findings for pain at day 1 as measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale suggested that there was no meaningful difference between the interventions (MD -2.68 mm, 95% CI -6.75 to 1.38; 2 studies, 127 participants; moderate-quality evidence).2. Multistrand stainless steel versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from the studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Pain was not measured.3. Conventional NiTi versus superelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is any difference between conventional and superelastic NiTi arch wires with regard to either alignment or pain (low- to very low-quality evidence).4. Conventional NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment between conventional and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Pain was not measured.5. Single-strand superelastic NiTi versus coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wires. There was only one study (24 participants) in this group. There is moderate-quality evidence that coaxial superelastic NiTi can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks (MD -6.76 mm, 95% CI -7.98 to -5.55). Pain was not measured.6. Superelastic NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment or pain between superelastic and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-quality evidence shows that arch wires of coaxial superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks than arch wires made of single-strand superelastic NiTi. Moderate-quality evidence also suggests there may be no difference in pain at day 1 between multistrand stainless steel arch wires and superelastic NiTi arch wires. Other than these findings, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether any particular arch wire material is superior to any other in terms of alignment rate, time to alignment, pain and root resorption.
Topics: Alloys; Dental Alloys; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Root Resorption; Tooth Movement Techniques; Toothache
PubMed: 30064155
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007859.pub4 -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research Feb 2024To evaluate the efficacy of microchips and 3D microsensors in the measurement of orthodontic forces. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of microchips and 3D microsensors in the measurement of orthodontic forces.
METHODS
Through September 2023, comprehensive searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS and SCIELO without restrictions.
RESULTS
After removing duplicate entries and applying the eligibility criteria, 23 studies were included for analysis. All the studies were conducted in vitro, and slightly more than half of them were centred on evaluating orthodontic forces exerted by aligners. Eight utilized microchips as measurement tools, while the remaining studies made use of 3D microsensors for their assessments. In the context of fixed appliances, key findings included a high level of agreement in 3-dimensional orthodontic force detection between simulation results and actual applied forces. Incorporating critical force-moment combinations during smart bracket calibration reduced measurement errors for most components. Translational tooth movement revealed a moment-to-force ratio, aligning with the bracket's centre of resistance. The primary findings in relation to aligners revealed several significant factors affecting the forces exerted by them. Notably, the foil thickness and staging were found to have a considerable impact on these forces, with optimal force transmission occurring at a layer height of 150 μm. Furthermore, the type of material used in 3D-printing aligners influenced the force levels, with attachments proving effective in generating extrusive forces. Deliberate adjustments in aligner thickness were observed to alter the forces and moments generated.
CONCLUSIONS
Microchips and 3D sensors provide precise and quantitative measurements of orthodontic forces in in vitro studies, enabling accurate monitoring and control of tooth movement.
PubMed: 38372469
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12768 -
Journal of Clinical and Experimental... Mar 2024To compare the effect of conventional brackets and self-ligating brackets on periodontal health. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To compare the effect of conventional brackets and self-ligating brackets on periodontal health.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search of information up to October 2022 was carried out in the following electronic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), EMBASE, SciELO and Google Scholar. We included studies that were randomised clinical trials, dealing with conventional brackets and self-ligating brackets and their effect on periodontal health, with no language restriction and no time limit. The Risk of Bias 2 (Rob 2.0) tool was used to determine the risk of bias of the included studies. The information selected from the studies was entered and analysed with RevMan 5.3, using the mean and standard deviation with a 95% confidence interval as a measure. Finally, an analysis was performed using the GRADE system to classify the quality of the evidence and grade the strength of the recommendation.
RESULTS
The preliminary search yielded a total of 399 articles, discarding those that did not meet the selection criteria, leaving only 13 articles. The effect of conventional and self-ligating brackets on periodontal health was determined using periodontal probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI) and bleeding index (BI), showing advantages of self-ligating brackets in PI and BI, and no differences compared to self-ligating brackets in PPD and GI.
CONCLUSIONS
Self-ligating brackets probably better preserve periodontal health compared to conventional brackets regarding plaque accumulation and bleeding on probing. Conventional brackets, self-ligating brackets, periodontal health, orthodontic treatment, systematic review, meta-analysis.
PubMed: 38600930
DOI: 10.4317/jced.61378 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jul 2022One of the risks that we find after orthodontic treatment is the secondary appearance of white spot lesions (WLS) after the removal of fixed multi-bracket appliances.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Changes in the Color and Brightness of White Spots Associated with Orthodontic Treatment 6 Months after the Application of Infiltrative Resins: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
One of the risks that we find after orthodontic treatment is the secondary appearance of white spot lesions (WLS) after the removal of fixed multi-bracket appliances. Today, there are several treatment methods, resin infiltration being the most used in the most serious cases. The objective of this study is to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and stability in the variables of color and gloss, six months after resin infiltration. A comprehensive search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus, Medline, and Web of Science. Articles published in the last 10 years were selected, including in vivo studies with a six-month follow-up. PRISMA guidelines were followed to carry out this systematic review. All studies where the application of resin was performed on carious lesions were discarded. Once the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, a final sample of four articles was obtained, on which the review and meta-analysis were carried out. Once examined, all authors considered that there was an immediate improvement in both variables. However, statistically significant differences were obtained in the color change outcome, but not in the brightness outcome in the subgroup analysis after six months of icon resin infiltration.
Topics: Color; Dental Caries; Diagnosis, Oral; Humans; MEDLINE; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; PubMed
PubMed: 35954634
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159277 -
International Orthodontics Dec 2021This study aimed to evaluate the failure incidence of brackets with at least six months follow-up between self-etch primer and conventional etch/primer, as well as to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of the failure rate, bonding time and ARI score of two orthodontic bonding systems: Self-Etch Primer and Conventional Etching Primer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate the failure incidence of brackets with at least six months follow-up between self-etch primer and conventional etch/primer, as well as to investigate the clinical duration of the bonding process and the amount of adhesive remnant index (ARI).
METHODS
Electronic search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). The electronic search targeted only randomized clinical trials and was limited from January 2000 to June 2021. Delphi list is used to evaluate the risk of bias and Stata Version14.2 software was used. This systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and recorded on the Ethics Committee of Research Institute of Dental Sciences, SBMU (IR.SBMU.DRC.REC.1398.240).
RESULTS
Out of 2288 extracted studies, 30 of them entered the full-text evaluation process. According to the inclusion criteria, 15 studies entered this systematic review. Containing 607 participants and 10,563 brackets/teeth. All the included studies were of randomized clinical trials (RCT) design with either parallel or split-mouth design. Comparing the two groups, the risk difference effect (RD)=0.007 CI 95% (-0.004,0.018) indicated a neglectable difference in the risk of bracket failure during treatment between the two groups. The index I=53.9% indicated moderate heterogeneity in the results. Furthermore, the P-value=0.007 indicated statistical insignificance between the two interventions in terms of failure rate. The clinical duration of bonding time analysis were equal to SMD _Cohen=-2.67 CI95% (-3.49, -1.85), which indicated a statistically significant reduction in clinical process time, using the self-etch primer. Data synthesis for adhesive remnant index could not be conducted due to heterogeneity among included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
There was no difference between the self-etch primer and conventional etch/primer in bracket debonding at a medium level of evidence, However, there was statistically significant reduction in clinical bonding time using self-etch primer.
Topics: Acid Etching, Dental; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Humans; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Brackets; Resin Cements; Shear Strength
PubMed: 34629307
DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2021.09.001 -
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Mar 2019Anchorage in orthodontics can be provided through several extra- and intra-oral sources including headgear, teeth, cortical bone and soft tissue. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anchorage in orthodontics can be provided through several extra- and intra-oral sources including headgear, teeth, cortical bone and soft tissue.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this review was to systematically review the effectiveness of miniscrews in reinforcing anchorage during en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in comparison to conventional anchorage appliances. Search method: Comprehensive searching of the electronic databases was undertaken up to March 2018 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic review, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via PubMed and Scopus databases. Additional searching for on-going and unpublished data and hand search of relevant journals were also undertaken, authors were contacted, and reference lists screened. Eligibility criteria: Searches were restricted to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English, which compared anchorage reinforcement using mechanically-retained miniscrews (diameter of 2 mm or less) to conventional anchorage appliances during en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in participants of any age treated with fixed appliances combined with extraction of maxillary premolars.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Blind and induplicate study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were undertaken. The primary outcome was the amount of mesial movement of the upper first permanent molar (anchorage loss) while secondary outcomes included treatment duration, number of visits, adverse effects and patient-centered outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. A random-effects model with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were generated for comparable outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity across the studies were assessed using the I and Chi test. Additional sensitivity tests were implemented.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria, however, data of 241 participants from 6 RCTs (250 miniscrews and 134 conventional anchorage appliances) were meta-analyzed. Qualities of the included RCTs varied from low to high. The standardized mean difference (SMD) of the anchrage loss between the two intervention groups was 2.07 mm ((95% CI (-3.05) to (-1.08), p < .001, I = 88%, 6 RCTs)) in favour of miniscrews, which was also preserved after excluding the high risk of bias studies (SMD 1.94 mm, 95% CI (-2.46) to (-0.42) p < .001, I = 93%, 3 RCTs)). Information on overall treatment duration, space closure duration, quality of treatment, patient-reported outcomes, adverse effects and number of visit were limited.
CONCLUSION
The result of the meta-analysis suggested that there is moderate quality of evidence that miniscrews are clinically and statistically more effective in preserving orthodontic anchorage than conventional appliances. However, this conclusion is supported by a small number of studies with variable qualities. High-quality RCTs would give a better understanding of miniscrews effectiveness in providing orthodontic anchorage.
Topics: Dental Prosthesis Design; Humans; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Palatal Expansion Technique; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 30350741
DOI: 10.1080/00016357.2018.1508742