-
Cureus Apr 2023This systematic review aimed to critically assess the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of clear aligners in the comprehensive treatment of... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aimed to critically assess the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of clear aligners in the comprehensive treatment of complex cases accompanied by premolars extraction. An electronic literature search by two reviewers was independently done on 27 February 2023 in the following databases without time and language limitations: Pubmed®, Scoups®, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library database, Web of Science™, and Proquest Database Open. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any type, non-randomized clinical trials (CCT), cohort studies, and prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies were reviewed. The risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool for randomized trials and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomized studies. After carefully searching the literature, six trials were included in this systematic review, three RCTs, two retrospective cohort studies, and one CCT. Two hundred eighty-three patients were included (186 females, 97 males). Three studies found that there were no differences between the clear aligners and fixed appliances when evaluations were done using the American Board of Orthodontists Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) or the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Two studies found that there were some differences between predicted and achieved tooth movements when clear aligners were used in premolars extraction cases. Based on the included studies, the duration of treatment was shorter with fixed appliances than the clear aligners when applied to orthodontic extraction cases. Both clear aligners and fixed appliances were found effective in the orthodontic treatment of premolar extraction-based cases. Fixed appliances have the advantage of achieving better buccolingual inclination and occlusal contacts in a shorter treatment duration. Treatment with clear aligners might be associated with differences between predicted and achieved tooth movements. Therefore, the characteristics of these techniques should be considered when making a treatment decision.
PubMed: 37128600
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.38311 -
Progress in Orthodontics Sep 2018Aim was to systematically search the literature and assess the available evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of the Invisalign® system.
BACKGROUND
Aim was to systematically search the literature and assess the available evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of the Invisalign® system.
METHODS
Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The reference lists of all eligible articles were examined for additional studies. Reporting of this review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS
Three RCTs, 8 prospective, and 11 retrospective studies were included. In general, the level of evidence was moderate and the risk of bias ranged from low to high, given the low risk of bias in included RCTs and the moderate (n = 13) or high (n = 6) risk of the other studies. The lack of standardized protocols and the high amount of clinical and methodological heterogeneity across the studies precluded a valid interpretation of the actual results through pooled estimates. However, there was substantial consistency among studies that the Invisalign® system is a viable alternative to conventional orthodontic therapy in the correction of mild to moderate malocclusions in non-growing patients that do not require extraction. Moreover, Invisalign® aligners can predictably level, tip, and derotate teeth (except for cuspids and premolars). On the other hand, limited efficacy was identified in arch expansion through bodily tooth movement, extraction space closure, corrections of occlusal contacts, and larger antero-posterior and vertical discrepancies.
CONCLUSIONS
Although this review included a considerable number of studies, no clear clinical recommendations can be made, based on solid scientific evidence, apart from non-extraction treatment of mild to moderate malocclusions in non-growing patients. Results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity.
Topics: Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Tooth Movement Techniques; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30264270
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-018-0235-z -
Korean Journal of Orthodontics May 2019We are currently living in an era where the use of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing has allowed individualized orthodontic treatments, but has also... (Review)
Review
We are currently living in an era where the use of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing has allowed individualized orthodontic treatments, but has also incorporated enhanced digitalized technology that does not permit improvisation. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze publications that assessed the accuracy and efficiency of the Invisalign® system. A systematic review was performed using a search strategy to identify articles that referenced Invisalign®, which were published between August 2007 and August 2017, and listed in the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, and LILACS. Additionally, a manual search of clinical trials was performed in scientific journals and other databases. To rate the methodological quality of the articles, a grading system described by the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care was used, in combination with the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment. We selected 20 articles that met the inclusion criteria and excluded 5 due to excess biases. The level of evidence was high. Although it is possible to treat malocclusions with plastic systems, the results are not as accurate as those achieved by treatment with fixed appliances.
PubMed: 31149604
DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2019.49.3.140 -
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 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2023In recent years the burden of aligner treatment has been growing. However, the sole use of aligners is characterized by limitations; thus attachments are bonded to the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In recent years the burden of aligner treatment has been growing. However, the sole use of aligners is characterized by limitations; thus attachments are bonded to the teeth to improve aligner retention and tooth movement. Nevertheless, it is often still a challenge to clinically achieve the planned movement. Thus, the aim of this study is to discuss the evidence of the shape, placement and bonding of composite attachments.
METHODS
A query was carried out in six databases on 10 December 2022 using the search string ("orthodontics" OR "malocclusion" OR "Tooth movement techniques AND ("aligner*" OR "thermoformed splints" OR "invisible splint*" AND ("attachment*" OR "accessor*" OR "auxill*" AND "position*").
RESULTS
There were 209 potential articles identified. Finally, twenty-six articles were included. Four referred to attachment bonding, and twenty-two comprised the influence of composite attachment on movement efficacy. Quality assessment tools were used according to the study type.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of attachments significantly improves the expression of orthodontic movement and aligner retention. It is possible to indicate sites on the teeth where attachments have a better effect on tooth movement and to assess which attachments facilitate movement. The research received no external funding. The PROSPERO database number is CRD42022383276.
Topics: Humans; Malocclusion; Tooth; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 36901488
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20054481 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2022Background: Our study aimed to systematically summarize the dentoskeletal effects of Herbst appliance; Forsus fatigue resistance device; and Class II elastics in... (Review)
Review
Background: Our study aimed to systematically summarize the dentoskeletal effects of Herbst appliance; Forsus fatigue resistance device; and Class II elastics in adolescent Class II malocclusion. Methods: Five databases; unpublished literature; and reference lists were last searched in August 2022. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies of at least 10 Class II growing patients that assessed dentoskeletal effects through cephalometric/CBCT superimpositions were eligible. The included studies quality was assessed with the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Heterogeneity was explored with subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Results: Among nine studies (298 patients); two-to-three studies were included in each meta-analysis. Less post-treatment upper incisor retroclination (<2) and no overbite; overjet; SNA; SNB; and lower incisor inclination differences were found between Herbst/Forsus and Class II elastics. No differences in maxilla; condyle; glenoid fossa; and most mandibular changes were found between Herbst and Class II elastics; except for a greater 1.5 mm increase in mandibular length and right mandibular ramus height (1.6 mm) with Herbst. Conclusions: Herbst and Class II elastics corrected the molar relationship; but Herbst moved the lower molars more mesially. Apart from an additional mandibular length increase; no other dental and anteroposterior skeletal difference was found. Forsus was more effective in molar correction; overjet reduction; and upper incisor control than Class II elastics. Trial registration number OSF: 10.17605/OSF.IO/8TK3R.
PubMed: 36498570
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11236995 -
Biomedical Journal 2014The surgery-first approach in orthognathic surgery has recently created a broader interest in completely eliminating time-consuming preoperative orthodontic treatment.... (Review)
Review
The surgery-first approach in orthognathic surgery has recently created a broader interest in completely eliminating time-consuming preoperative orthodontic treatment. Available evidence on the surgery-first approach should be appraised to support its use in orthognathic surgery. A MEDLINE search using the keywords "surgery first" and "orthognathic surgery" was conducted to select studies using the surgery-first approach. We also manually searched the reference list of the selected keywords to include articles not selected by the MEDLINE search. The search identified 18 articles related to the surgery-first approach. There was no randomized controlled clinical trial. Four papers were excluded as the content was only personal opinion or basic scientific research. Three studies were retrospective cohort studies in nature. The other 11 studies were case reports. For skeletal Class III surgical correction, the final long-term outcomes for maxillofacial and dental relationship were not significantly different between the surgery-first approach and the orthodontics-first approach in transverse (e.g., intercanine or intermolar width) dimension, vertical (e.g., anterior open bite, lower anterior facial height) dimension, and sagittal (e.g., anterior-posterior position of pogonion and lower incisors) dimension. Total treatment duration was substantially shorter in cases of surgery-first approach use. In conclusion, most published studies related to the surgery-first approach were mainly on orthognathic correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion. Both the surgery-first approach and orthodontics-first approach had similar long-term outcomes in dentofacial relationship. However, the surgery-first approach had shorter treatment time.
Topics: Humans; Malocclusion, Angle Class III; Mandibular Osteotomy; Orthodontics, Corrective; Orthognathic Surgery; Orthognathic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25116713
DOI: 10.4103/2319-4170.126863 -
European Journal of Orthodontics Jun 2020The use of orthodontic aligners to treat a variety of malocclusions has seen considerable increase in the last years, yet evidence about their efficacy and adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of orthodontic aligners to treat a variety of malocclusions has seen considerable increase in the last years, yet evidence about their efficacy and adverse effects relative to conventional fixed orthodontic appliances remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review assesses the efficacy of aligners and fixed appliances for comprehensive orthodontic treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
Eight databases were searched without limitations in April 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized or matched non-randomized studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment was done independently in triplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MDs) or relative risks (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were conducted, followed by sensitivity analyses, and the GRADE analysis of the evidence quality.
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies (4 randomized/7 non-randomized) were included comparing aligners with braces (887 patients; mean age 28.0 years; 33% male). Moderate quality evidence indicated that treatment with orthodontic aligners is associated with worse occlusal outcome with the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (3 studies; MD = 9.9; 95% CI = 3.6-16.2) and more patients with unacceptable results (3 studies; RR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.2-2.0). No significant differences were seen for treatment duration. The main limitations of existing evidence pertained to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Orthodontic treatment with aligners is associated with worse treatment outcome compared to fixed appliances in adult patients. Current evidence does not support the clinical use of aligners as a treatment modality that is equally effective to the gold standard of braces.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42019131589).
Topics: Adult; Dental Care; Duration of Therapy; Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Appliances; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31758191
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjz094 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year-old children in the UK. The condition develops when permanent teeth erupt. These... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year-old children in the UK. The condition develops when permanent teeth erupt. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress. Children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with dental braces to reduce the prominence of their teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait and provide treatment in adolescence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth initiated when children are seven to 11 years old ('early treatment' in two phases) compared to in adolescence at around 12 to 16 years old ('late treatment' in one phase); to assess the effects of late treatment compared to no treatment; and to assess the effects of different types of orthodontic braces.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 27 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 27 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 27 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing 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
Randomised controlled trials of orthodontic treatments to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. We included trials that compared early treatment in children (two-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-braces versus late treatment in adolescents (one-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces, and trials that compared any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces versus no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (where treatment started at a similar age in the intervention groups).We excluded trials involving participants with a cleft lip or palate, or other craniofacial deformity/syndrome, and trials that recruited patients who had previously received surgical treatment for their Class II malocclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the fixed-effect model for meta-analyses including two or three studies and the random-effects model for more than three studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 RCTs based on data from 1251 participants.Three trials compared early treatment with a functional appliance versus late treatment for overjet, ANB and incisal trauma. After phase one of early treatment (i.e. before the other group had received any intervention), there was a reduction in overjet and ANB reduction favouring treatment with a functional appliance; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no difference between groups in final overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18; 343 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43; 347 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Early treatment with functional appliances reduced the incidence of incisal trauma compared to late treatment (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.95; 332 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). The difference in the incidence of incisal trauma was clinically important with 30% (51/171) of participants reporting new trauma in the late treatment group compared to only 19% (31/161) of participants who had received early treatment.Two trials compared early treatment using headgear versus late treatment. After phase one of early treatment, headgear had reduced overjet and ANB; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in overjet (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12; 238 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26; 231 participants) (low-quality evidence). Early (two-phase) treatment with headgear reduced the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.80; 237 participants) (low-quality evidence), with almost half the incidence of new incisal trauma (24/117) compared to the late treatment group (44/120).Seven trials compared late treatment with functional appliances versus no treatment. There was a reduction in final overjet with both fixed functional appliances (MD -5.46 mm, 95% CI -6.63 to -4.28; 2 trials, 61 participants) and removable functional appliances (MD -4.62, 95% CI -5.33 to -3.92; 3 trials, 122 participants) (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in final ANB between fixed functional appliances and no treatment (MD -0.53°, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.22; 3 trials, 89 participants) (low-quality evidence), but removable functional appliances seemed to reduce ANB compared to no treatment (MD -2.37°, 95% CI -3.01 to -1.74; 2 trials, 99 participants) (low-quality evidence).Six trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with Twin Block versus other appliances and found no difference in overjet (0.08 mm, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.76; 4 trials, 259 participants) (low-quality evidence). The reduction in ANB favoured treatment with a Twin Block (-0.56°, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.16; 6 trials, 320 participants) (low-quality evidence).Three trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with removable functional appliances versus fixed functional appliances and found a reduction in overjet in favour of fixed appliances (0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.33; two trials, 154 participants) (low-quality evidence), and a reduction in ANB in favour of removable appliances (-1.04°, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.49; 3 trials, 185 participants) (low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence of low to moderate quality suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective for reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment in adolescence. There appear to be no other advantages of providing early treatment when compared to late treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that, compared to no treatment, late treatment in adolescence with functional appliances, is effective for reducing the prominence of upper front teeth.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Child; Extraoral Traction Appliances; Humans; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional; Orthodontic Retainers; Orthodontics, Corrective; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29534303
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003452.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017A Class II division 2 malocclusion is characterised by upper front teeth that are retroclined (tilted toward the roof of the mouth) and an increased overbite (deep... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A Class II division 2 malocclusion is characterised by upper front teeth that are retroclined (tilted toward the roof of the mouth) and an increased overbite (deep overbite), which can cause oral problems and may affect appearance.This problem can be corrected by the use of special dental braces (functional appliances) that move the upper front teeth forward and change the growth of the upper or lower jaws, or both. Most types of functional appliances braces are removeable and this treatment approach does not usually require extraction of any permanent teeth. Additional treatment with fixed braces may be necessary to ensure the best result.An alternative approach is to provide space for the correction of the front teeth by moving the molar teeth backwards. This is done by applying a force to the teeth from the back of the head using a head brace (headgear) and transmitting this force to part of a fixed or removable dental brace that is attached to the back teeth. The treatment may be carried out with or without extraction of permanent teeth.If headgear use is not feasible, the back teeth may be held in place by bands connected to a fixed bar placed across the roof of the mouth or in contact with the front of the roof of the mouth. This treatment usually requires two permanent teeth to be taken out (one on each side).
OBJECTIVES
To establish whether orthodontic treatment that does not involve extraction of permanent teeth produces a result that is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 January 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 January 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 January 2017). To identify any unpublished or ongoing trials, the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch) were searched. We also contacted international researchers who were likely to be involved in any Class II division 2 clinical trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of orthodontic treatments to correct deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results to find eligible studies, and would have extracted data and assessed the risk of bias from any included trials. We had planned to use random-effects meta-analysis; to express effect estimates as mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals; and to investigate any clinical or methodological heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any RCTs or CCTs that assessed the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusion in children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is not possible to provide any evidence-based guidance to recommend or discourage any type of orthodontic treatment to correct Class II division 2 malocclusion in children. Trials should be conducted to evaluate the best management of Class II division 2 malocclusion.
Topics: Child; Humans; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional; Orthodontics, Corrective; Overbite
PubMed: 28968484
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005972.pub3