-
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searched four bibliographic databases up to 11 January 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.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 -
The Angle Orthodontist Mar 2022To compare the treatment and posttreatment effects of Invisalign aligners that incorporated SmartForce features and attachments to traditional fixed appliances. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
To compare the treatment and posttreatment effects of Invisalign aligners that incorporated SmartForce features and attachments to traditional fixed appliances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This randomized controlled trial included 66 patients, 32 aligners, and 34 fixed-appliance patients. The median ages of the aligner and braces patients were 26.7 (interquartile range [IQR]: 9.8) and 25.9 (IQR: 16.6) years, respectively. Pretreatment occlusion was assessed using the ABO Discrepancy Index. Posttreatment (T1) and 6-month retention (T2) occlusions were quantified using the ABO Objective Grading System (OGS) scores.
RESULTS
The braces group finished treatment significantly (P < .001) earlier (0.4 years) than the aligner group. The median DI scores for the aligner and braces groups were 4.5 and 7.0, respectively, which was a statistically significant (P = .015), but clinically insignificant, difference. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for the total OGS scores or any of the individual component scores at debond (T1) or after 6 months of retention (T2). During the posttreatment period, alignment and overjet worsened significantly in the aligner group, while buccolingual inclinations and occlusal relations improved. Over the same period, alignment worsened in the braces group and buccolingual inclinations improved. There was no statistically significant between-group difference in posttreatment changes of the total OGS scores.
CONCLUSIONS
While patients with simple malocclusions require 4.8 months longer treatment times with aligners than traditional braces, the treatment and 6-month posttreatment occlusal outcomes are similar.
Topics: Child; Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Orthodontic Brackets; Overbite
PubMed: 35168256
DOI: 10.2319/032921-246.1 -
The Angle Orthodontist Jul 2023To evaluate the content and quality of information about orthodontic pain on YouTube.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the content and quality of information about orthodontic pain on YouTube.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
YouTube was searched using the keywords "orthodontic pain" and "brace pain." A total of 65 videos were chosen for the final analysis. Videos were classified into high- and low-content groups using an eight-point scoring system and reviewed according to selected orthodontic pain-related topics. Video quality was rated by the Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI) and Global Quality Scale (GQS). Statistical data analysis was performed using SPSS 28.0 software, Mann-Whitney U-tests, χ2 tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients.
RESULTS
Most YouTube videos related to orthodontic pain were low content (86.2%), and a few were high content (13.8%). Pharmacological pain relief was the most prevalent topic (50.8%), followed by duration of pain (32.3%) and influence of pain on patient quality of life (29.2%). The least-mentioned topic was possible location of pain (7.7%). Most of the videos were uploaded by laypeople (64.6%). Videos uploaded by dental professionals had significantly higher means of GQS scores (P = .035), flow of information (P < .001), information quality (P = .008), and total VIQI (P < .001). Compared with low-content, high-content videos had a higher mean of flow of information (P = .037). There was a weak correlation between total content and GQS scores and a strong correlation between GQS and VIQI scores (r = 0.740; P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, YouTube was found to be an inadequate source of information on orthodontic pain.
Topics: Humans; Social Media; Quality of Life; Video Recording; Orthodontic Brackets; Pain; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 36820821
DOI: 10.2319/072822-527.1 -
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 -
Cureus Sep 2023Currently, ligature-free bracket technologies, including self-ligating brackets (SLBs), are all the rage in orthodontics. Self-ligating mechanisms have been shown to be... (Review)
Review
Currently, ligature-free bracket technologies, including self-ligating brackets (SLBs), are all the rage in orthodontics. Self-ligating mechanisms have been shown to be more effective and less time-consuming in orthodontic treatment than traditional appliances due to their enhanced frictional properties. Crucial to the success of the multi-band/bracket method is the transmission of forces and moments from the bracket to the archwire. Advances in bracket design and ligation techniques are constantly being made to better distribute loads and increase the efficiency of leveling.
PubMed: 37809259
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44834 -
The Angle Orthodontist Jan 2021The purpose of this cohort study was to evaluate the effect of self-ligating brackets (SB) and other related factors that influence orthodontic treatment time. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this cohort study was to evaluate the effect of self-ligating brackets (SB) and other related factors that influence orthodontic treatment time.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This was a two-armed prospective study. Consecutively treated patients who were recruited from a private practice were enrolled and asked to choose between SB and conventional brackets (CB). If the patient did not have a preference, that patient was randomly allocated. An identical archwire sequence was used, and all patients were treated by a single orthodontist. Treatment duration, number of bracket failures, poor oral hygiene, poor elastic wear, whether or not to orthodontic mini-implants (OMI) were used, OMI failure, extraction, American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index, and arch length discrepancy were measured and statistically analyzed using t-tests, correlation analysis, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Stepwise regression analysis was conducted to generate an equation to predict treatment duration.
RESULTS
A total of 134 patients with an average age of 22.73 years were included. The average treatment duration was 28.63 months. ANCOVA showed no significant difference in treatment duration between CB and SB. Stepwise regression analysis could explain 64.6% of the variance in treatment duration using five variables.
CONCLUSIONS
SB did not exhibit a significant reduction in treatment time as compared with CB. Patient cooperation, extractions, and malocclusion severity had a significant impact on treatment duration.
Topics: Adult; Cohort Studies; Dental Implants; Humans; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Prospective Studies; Young Adult
PubMed: 33289803
DOI: 10.2319/050220-379.1 -
International Journal of Dentistry 2020Patients seeking orthodontic treatment are increasing, and clinicians often have to place brackets on various surfaces aside from enamel. It is crucial to know what... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients seeking orthodontic treatment are increasing, and clinicians often have to place brackets on various surfaces aside from enamel. It is crucial to know what materials or instruments are required to bond brackets to each surface.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to serve as a clinical guideline for the safest and most effective approaches taken to condition various surfaces for bonding to orthodontic brackets and provide background knowledge on the subject.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed and EBSCO databases were searched, along with the use of Google Scholar search engine, to obtain relevant articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals, from 1955 to 2020. Keywords used were Shear bond strength; Orthodontic bracket; Base design; Etching; Sandblasting; Laser; Conditioning; Enamel; Ceramic; Porcelain; Gold; Amalgam; Composite.
CONCLUSION
Even though orthophosphoric acid is the most widely used enamel conditioning agent, laser etching should be considered to avoid enamel decalcification. Hydrofluoric acid is the current standard for ceramic conditioning; however, its use intraorally should be minimized due to its toxicity. Orthophosphoric acid, CoJet-Sand air abrasion, and laser etching are viable alternatives for conditioning ceramic. Monobond Etch & Prime is toxic and should not be used intraorally. Composite can be conditioned by bur roughening, and the use of ceramic brackets is recommended. Amalgam and gold surfaces can be conditioned adequately by air abrasion. Despite the claims of many authors, the maximum shear forces that orthodontic brackets are subjected to are not 6-8 mega pascal (MPa). Further investigation is required in that regard. More in vivo studies need to be performed to confirm the in vitro results.
PubMed: 32733564
DOI: 10.1155/2020/8874909 -
Korean Journal of Orthodontics Sep 2020Forces and moments delivered by a straight wire connecting two orthodontic brackets are statically indeterminate and cannot be estimated using the classical equations of...
Forces and moments delivered by a straight wire connecting two orthodontic brackets are statically indeterminate and cannot be estimated using the classical equations of static equilibrium. To identify the mechanics of such two-bracket systems, Burstone and Koenig used the principles of linear beam theory to estimate the resulting force systems. In the original publication, however, it remains unclear how the force systems were calculated because no reference or computational details on the underlying principles have been provided. Using the moment carry-over principle and the relative angulation of the brackets, a formula was derived to calculate the relative moments of the two brackets. Because of the moment equilibrium, the vertical forces that exist as a forcecouple on the two brackets can also be calculated. The accuracy of the proposed approach can be validated using previously published empirical data.
PubMed: 32938828
DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2020.50.5.356 -
Turkish Journal of Orthodontics Dec 2019The topic of bracket removal and enamel integrity has been extensively investigated. Nevertheless, bracket removal, as far as pain and/or discomfort are concerned, is... (Review)
Review
The topic of bracket removal and enamel integrity has been extensively investigated. Nevertheless, bracket removal, as far as pain and/or discomfort are concerned, is poorly delineated in the orthodontic literature, i.e., the scarcity of reports in this area is conspicuous. In fact, only six studies were retrieved upon a PubMed search. These clinical studies performed with metal brackets are presented in a chronological order in the present review. Pain and/or discomfort during bracket removal are urgently in need of additional studies. The orthodontists have to be well-informed and updated to convey all the aspects of this procedure to the patient.
PubMed: 32110469
DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2019.19045 -
Journal of Orthodontic Science 2023The current article aims to review the previous studies that measure the orthodontic bracket slot dimensions and geometry. Searches in different databases, including... (Review)
Review
The current article aims to review the previous studies that measure the orthodontic bracket slot dimensions and geometry. Searches in different databases, including PubMed Central, Science Direct, Wiley Online Library, the Cochrane Library, Textbooks, Google Scholar, and Research Gate, in addition to a manual search, were performed about the methods of assessing orthodontic bracket slot dimension up to March 2023. The irrelevant and duplicate studies were eliminated, leaving 35 studies for this narrative review. The findings indicate that the slots are oversized with diverging walls in most studies. Manufacturers must respect the standards during manufacturing brackets and adhere to the actual dimensions and tolerance values.
PubMed: 37881671
DOI: 10.4103/jos.jos_39_23