-
Australian Dental Journal Mar 2017Since the introduction of the Tooth Positioner (TP Orthodontics) in 1944, removable appliances analogous to clear aligners have been employed for mild to moderate... (Review)
Review
Since the introduction of the Tooth Positioner (TP Orthodontics) in 1944, removable appliances analogous to clear aligners have been employed for mild to moderate orthodontic tooth movements. Clear aligner therapy has been a part of orthodontic practice for decades, but has, particularly since the introduction of Invisalign appliances (Align Technology) in 1998, become an increasingly common addition to the orthodontic armamentarium. An internet search reveals at least 27 different clear aligner products currently on offer for orthodontic treatment. The present paper will highlight the increasing popularity of clear aligner appliances, as well as the clinical scope and the limitations of aligner therapy in general. Further, the paper will outline the differences between the various types of clear aligner products currently available.
Topics: Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable
PubMed: 28297094
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12480 -
Dental Update 2016Extra-oral appliances are used in orthodontics to apply forces to the jaws, dentition or both and the popularity of these appliances is cyclical. Although the use of... (Review)
Review
Extra-oral appliances are used in orthodontics to apply forces to the jaws, dentition or both and the popularity of these appliances is cyclical. Although the use of retraction headgear for the management of Class II malocclusion has declined over the last 20 years with the refinement of non-compliance approaches, including temporary anchorage devices, headgear still has a useful role in orthodontics. The use of protraction headgear has increased as more evidence of its effectiveness for the treatment of Class lIl malocclusion has become available. This paper describes the mechanics and contemporary uses of headgear in orthodontics for primary care dentists and specialist orthodontists. CPD/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Extra-oral appliances have specific uses in orthodontic biomechanics. Clinicians using retraction headgear and protraction headgear should be familiar with their clinical indications, the potential problems and how these can be avoided.
Topics: Biomechanical Phenomena; Extraoral Traction Appliances; Humans; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Stress, Mechanical; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 27024904
DOI: 10.12968/denu.2016.43.1.74 -
Journal (Canadian Dental Association) Apr 2007Adult patients seeking orthodontic treatment are increasingly motivated by esthetic considerations. The majority of these patients reject wearing labial fixed appliances...
Adult patients seeking orthodontic treatment are increasingly motivated by esthetic considerations. The majority of these patients reject wearing labial fixed appliances and are looking instead to more esthetic treatment options, including lingual orthodontics and Invisalign appliances. Since Align Technology introduced the Invisalign appliance in 1999 in an extensive public campaign, the appliance has gained tremendous attention from adult patients and dental professionals. The transparency of the Invisalign appliance enhances its esthetic appeal for those adult patients who are averse to wearing conventional labial fixed orthodontic appliances. Although guidelines about the types of malocclusions that this technique can treat exist, few clinical studies have assessed the effectiveness of the appliance. A few recent studies have outlined some of the limitations associated with this technique that clinicians should recognize early before choosing treatment options.
Topics: Adult; Contraindications; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Open Bite; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Patient Compliance; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 17439714
DOI: No ID Found -
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 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 -
Australian Dental Journal Mar 2017The treatment of children presenting with a Class II division I malocclusion involves one of two approaches. The first provides treatment in two phases; one of... (Review)
Review
The treatment of children presenting with a Class II division I malocclusion involves one of two approaches. The first provides treatment in two phases; one of intervention during the mixed dentition (phase I) followed by a second definitive course of appliance treatment in early adolescence (phase II). The second approach involves providing a single course of comprehensive therapy during adolescence. The debate for and against early treatment is discussed alongside key, clinically relevant evidence related to Class II division I malocclusions.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Child; Dentition, Mixed; Female; Humans; Male; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional; Orthodontics, Interceptive
PubMed: 28297093
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12478 -
BMC Oral Health Jan 2019Align technology has developed greatly over past few years. Patients tended to prefer clear aligners over conventional brackets because of the superior comfort and...
BACKGROUND
Align technology has developed greatly over past few years. Patients tended to prefer clear aligners over conventional brackets because of the superior comfort and esthetics, while the effectiveness of clear aligners was still controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to verify whether the treatment effectiveness of clear aligners was similar to the conventional fixed appliances.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of the Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases for studies published through to August 20, 2018 was conducted. Comparative clinical studies assessing the effectiveness of clear aligners compared with braces were included.
RESULTS
Eight papers were included in this study. Two of the included papers were randomized controlled trials and six were cohort studies. Clear aligners might not be as effective as braces in producing adequate occlusal contacts, controlling teeth torque, increasing transverse width and retention. While no statistically significant difference was found between two groups in Objective Grading System score (WMD = 8.38, 95% CI [- 0.17, 16.93]; P = 0.05). On the other hand, patients treated with clear aligners had a statistically significant shorter treatment duration than with braces (WMD = - 6.31, 95% CI [- 8.37, - 4.24]; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Both clear aligners and braces were effective in treating malocclusion. Clear aligners had advantage in segmented movement of teeth and shortened treatment duration, but were not as effective as braces in producing adequate occlusal contacts, controlling teeth torque, and retention.
Topics: Dental Care; Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Tooth Movement Techniques; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30674307
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0695-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Comforting behaviours, such as the use of pacifiers (dummies, soothers), blankets and finger or thumb sucking, are common in babies and young children. These comforting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Comforting behaviours, such as the use of pacifiers (dummies, soothers), blankets and finger or thumb sucking, are common in babies and young children. These comforting habits, which can be referred to collectively as 'non-nutritive sucking habits' (NNSHs), tend to stop as children get older, under their own impetus or with support from parents and carers. However, if the habit continues whilst the permanent dentition is becoming established, it can contribute to, or cause, development of a malocclusion (abnormal bite). A diverse variety of approaches has been used to help children with stopping a NNSH. These include advice, removal of the comforting object, fitting an orthodontic appliance to interfere with the habit, application of an aversive taste to the digit or behaviour modification techniques. Some of these interventions are easier to apply than others and less disturbing for the child and their parent; some are more applicable to a particular type of habit.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the review was to evaluate the effects of different interventions for cessation of NNSHs in children. The secondary objectives were to determine which interventions work most quickly and are the most effective in terms of child and parent- or carer-centred outcomes of least discomfort and psychological distress from the intervention, as well as the dental measures of malocclusion (reduction in anterior open bite, overjet and correction of posterior crossbite) and cost-effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 8 October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 8 October 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014), PsycINFO via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 8 October 2014), the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (Clinical Trials.gov) (to 8 October 2014) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 8 October 2014). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We screened reference lists from relevant articles and contacted authors of eligible studies for further information where necessary.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in children with a non-nutritive sucking habit that compared one intervention with another intervention or a no-intervention control group. The primary outcome of interest was cessation of the habit.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Three review authors were involved in screening the records identified; two undertook data extraction, two assessed risk of bias and two assessed overall quality of the evidence base. Most of the data could not be combined and only one meta-analysis could be carried out.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six trials, which recruited 252 children (aged two and a half to 18 years), but presented follow-up data on only 246 children. Digit sucking was the only NNSH assessed in the studies. Five studies compared single or multiple interventions with a no-intervention or waiting list control group and one study made a head-to-head comparison. All the studies were at high risk of bias due to major limitations in methodology and reporting. There were small numbers of participants in the studies (20 to 38 participants per study) and follow-up times ranged from one to 36 months. Short-term outcomes were observed under one year post intervention and long-term outcomes were observed at one year or more post intervention. Orthodontics appliance (with or without psychological intervention) versus no treatmentTwo trials that assessed this comparison evaluated our primary outcome of cessation of habit. One of the trials evaluated palatal crib and one used a mix of palatal cribs and arches. Both trials were at high risk of bias. The orthodontic appliance was more likely to stop digit sucking than no treatment, whether it was used over the short term (risk ratio (RR) 6.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 25.53; two trials, 70 participants) or long term (RR 5.81, 95% CI 1.49 to 22.66; one trial, 37 participants) or used in combination with a psychological intervention (RR 6.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 41.96; one trial, 32 participants). Psychological intervention versus no treatmentTwo trials (78 participants) at high risk of bias evaluated positive reinforcement (alone or in combination with gaining the child's co-operation) or negative reinforcement compared with no treatment. Pooling of data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions in the short term (RR 6.16, 95% CI 1.18 to 32.10; I(2) = 0%). One study, with data from 57 participants, reported on the long-term effect of positive and negative reinforcement on sucking cessation and found a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions (RR 6.25, 95% CI 1.65 to 23.65). Head-to-head comparisonsOnly one trial demonstrated a clear difference in effectiveness between different active interventions. This trial, which had only 22 participants, found a higher likelihood of cessation of habit with palatal crib than palatal arch (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.59).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found low quality evidence that orthodontic appliances (palatal arch and palatal crib) and psychological interventions (including positive and negative reinforcement) are effective at improving sucking cessation in children. There is very low quality evidence that palatal crib is more effective than palatal arch. This review has highlighted the need for high quality trials evaluating interventions to stop non-nutritive sucking habits to be conducted and the need for a consolidated, standardised approach to reporting outcomes in these trials.
Topics: Adolescent; Bedding and Linens; Child; Child, Preschool; Fingersucking; Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Appliances; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional; Pacifiers; Reinforcement, Psychology; Stress, Psychological; Sucking Behavior
PubMed: 25825863
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008694.pub2 -
American Journal of Orthodontics and... Apr 2016A man, aged 28 years 9 months, came for an orthodontic consultation for a skeletal Class III malocclusion (ANB angle, -3°) with a modest asymmetric Class II and...
A man, aged 28 years 9 months, came for an orthodontic consultation for a skeletal Class III malocclusion (ANB angle, -3°) with a modest asymmetric Class II and Class III molar relationship, complicated by an anterior crossbite, a deepbite, and 12 mm of asymmetric maxillary crowding. Despite the severity of the malocclusion (Discrepancy Index, 37), the patient desired noninvasive camouflage treatment. The 3-Ring diagnosis showed that treatment without extractions or orthognathic surgery was a viable approach. Arch length analysis indicated that differential interproximal enamel reduction could resolve the crowding and midline discrepancy, but a miniscrew in the infrazygomatic crest was needed to retract the right buccal segment. The patient accepted the complex, staged treatment plan with the understanding that it would require about 3.5 years. Fixed appliance treatment with passive self-ligating brackets, early light short elastics, bite turbos, interproximal enamel reduction, and infrazygomatic crest retraction opened the vertical dimension of the occlusion, improved the ANB angle by 2°, and achieved excellent alignment, as evidenced by a Cast Radiograph Evaluation score of 28 and a Pink and White dental esthetic score of 3.
Topics: Adult; Cephalometry; Enamel Microabrasion; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Male; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Malocclusion, Angle Class III; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Appliances; Orthodontic Retainers; Overbite; Patient Care Planning; Tooth Movement Techniques; Treatment Outcome; Vertical Dimension
PubMed: 27021460
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.042 -
Progress in Orthodontics Sep 2018To describe an esthetic orthodontic treatment using aligners in an adult patient with class II subdivision associated with crowding and dental crossbite. An 18-year-old...
BACKGROUND
To describe an esthetic orthodontic treatment using aligners in an adult patient with class II subdivision associated with crowding and dental crossbite. An 18-year-old hyperdivergent male patient with skeletal class II from mandibular retrusion presented for an orthodontic treatment. Occlusally, the patient presents class II subdivision, crossbite at tooth 4.4, an upper midline deviated towards the left with respect to the lower and facial midlines, and slight crowding in both arches. The patient refused conventional fixed multibracket treatment in favor of aligners. Pre- and post-treatment records as well as 1-year follow-up records are presented.
FINDINGS
Treatment objectives were achieved in 12 months, and the patient was satisfied with the functional and esthetic outcomes, which were stable at 1 year.
CONCLUSION
Combining aligners with appropriate auxiliaries is an efficacious means of resolving orthodontic issues such as class II, dental crossbite, and crowding in a time-frame comparable to that of conventional fixed orthodontics. Furthermore, this system is associated with optimal oral hygiene and excellent esthetics.
Topics: Adolescent; Cephalometry; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Male; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Patient Satisfaction; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 30171391
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-018-0221-5