European journal of orthodontics最新文献

Background: While retention appliances are widely used in orthodontics, there is still no evidence-based consensus regarding the optimal type of appliance or time of retention.

Objectives: To compare chairside rectangular chain retainers, which can be placed in one sitting, with conventional multi-stranded bonded retainers regarding their levels of stability, biological side effects, complications, and patient experiences.

Trial design: A single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

Methods: In total, 48 patients were included in this single-centre, randomized controlled trial conducted in Varberg, Region Halland, Sweden. The patients were randomized to two groups: the chairside rectangular chain retainer group, using the Ortho FlexTech retainer (OFT); and the conventional retainer group, using the 0.0195 Penta One multi-stranded spiral wire (PeO). The primary outcome was Little´s irregularity index (LII) evaluated at debond (T0) and at 3 months (T3) and 12 months (T12). The secondary outcomes were inter-canine distance (ICD), plaque index (PI), calculus index (CI), bleeding on probing (BoP), and caries, evaluated at T0, T3, and T12, as well as patients' perceptions, evaluated at T3 and T12, and technical complications that were registered throughout the study period. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used for continuous variables for inter-group comparisons, and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was used for intra-group comparisons.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding LII, biological side effects, technical complications, or patients' experiences. However, there was a small but statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the maintenance of the ICD. Within the OFT group, there was a significant increase in CI, and within the PeO group, there was a significant increase in BoP.

Conclusions: In terms of clinical relevance, the chairside rectangular chain retainer and the conventional multi-stranded spiral wire provide similar outcomes with respect to the stability of alignment, biological side-effects, technical complications, and patients' experiences short-term.

Trial registration: VGFOUreg-929962. Keywords: Orthodontic retainers; fixed retainers; retention; stability.

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the accuracy and efficiency of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven automated landmark detection for cephalometric analysis on two-dimensional (2D) lateral cephalograms and three-dimensional (3D) cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images.

Search methods: An electronic search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and grey literature with search timeline extending up to January 2024.

Selection criteria: Studies that employed AI for 2D or 3D cephalometric landmark detection were included.

Data collection and analysis: The selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies were performed independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the 2D landmarks identification based on both mean radial error and standard error.

Results: Following the removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening, and full-text reading, 34 publications were selected. Amongst these, 27 studies evaluated the accuracy of AI-driven automated landmarking on 2D lateral cephalograms, while 7 studies involved 3D-CBCT images. A meta-analysis, based on the success detection rate of landmark placement on 2D images, revealed that the error was below the clinically acceptable threshold of 2 mm (1.39 mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.92 mm). For 3D images, meta-analysis could not be conducted due to significant heterogeneity amongst the study designs. However, qualitative synthesis indicated that the mean error of landmark detection on 3D images ranged from 1.0 to 5.8 mm. Both automated 2D and 3D landmarking proved to be time-efficient, taking less than 1 min. Most studies exhibited a high risk of bias in data selection (n = 27) and reference standard (n = 29).

Conclusion: The performance of AI-driven cephalometric landmark detection on both 2D cephalograms and 3D-CBCT images showed potential in terms of accuracy and time efficiency. However, the generalizability and robustness of these AI systems could benefit from further improvement.

Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42022328800.

Background: Extraction space closure is a challenging phase during orthodontic treatment that affects not only the total treatment duration but also the whole treatment outcome.

Objective: To compare the efficiency of friction and frictionless mechanics during en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in adult patients with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.

Trial design: Two-arm parallel group, single-center randomized clinical trial.

Materials and methods: Thirty-two adult patients with bimaxillary protrusion were recruited and randomly allocated to two different retraction mechanics. A friction group, using NiTi coil springs and a frictionless group using closing T-loops for en-masse retraction. Randomization in a 1:1 ratio was generated by Microsoft Excel. The randomization numbers were secured in opaque sealed envelopes for allocation concealment. Retraction started in all patients following first premolars extraction using miniscrews as a source of indirect anchorage. Activation was done on a monthly basis until complete retraction of anterior segment. The rate of retraction, amount of anchorage loss, the dental, and soft tissue changes were analyzed on digital models and lateral cephalograms taken before retraction and after space closure.

Blinding: The outcome assessor was blinded through data concealment during assessment.

Results: Two patients were lost to follow up, so 30 patients completed the trial. The rate of anterior segment retraction was 0.88 ± 0.66 mm/month in the frictionless group compared to 0.72 ± 0.36 mm/month in the friction group which was statistically significant. Anchorage loss of 1.18 ± 0.72 mm in the friction group compared to 1.29 ± 0.55 mm in the frictionless group with no significant difference. Comparable dental and soft tissue changes following en-masse retraction were reported in both groups, with no statistically significant difference.

Harm: one patient complained of soft tissue swelling following miniscrew insertion, but the swelling disappeared after one week of using mouth wash.

Limitation: The study focused only on the maxillary arch.

Conclusion: Both mechanics have successfully achieved the required treatment objectives in patients with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Frictionless group showed a faster rate of retraction than the friction group, which was statistically but not clinically significant.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT03261024.

Background: Unilateral posterior crossbite is a common malocclusion, and early treatment is recommended to enable normal growth. There are several possibilities regarding choice of appliances used for correcting this malocclusion; however, when treatment is financed by public funds the decision needs to be based not only on the effects but also on the effect in relation to the costs.

Objectives: The aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing quad helix (QH) and rapid maxillary expanders (RME; hyrax-type) in children in the early mixed dentition.

Material and methods: Seventy-two patients were randomized to treatment with either QH or RME, at two different centres. Data were collected from the patient's medical records regarding success rate, number of visits, total treatment time, emergency visits, and so forth, together with answers from patient questionnaires concerning absence from school and use of analgesics. A cost-effectiveness analysis with both an intention-to-treat (ITT) and a per-protocol approach was performed, as well as a deterministic sensitivity analysis.

Results: The success rate, one year after the completion of the expansion, was equal between groups according to the ITT approach. From a healthcare perspective, the mean cost difference between RME and QH was €32.05 in favour of QH (P = 0.583; NS). From a societal perspective, the mean cost difference was €32.61 in favour of QH (P = 0.742; NS). The total appliance cost alone was higher in the RME group €202.67 resp. €155.58 in the QH group (P = 0.001). The probability of RME having a higher cost was 71% from a healthcare perspective and 62.7% from a societal perspective. The total treatment time was 97 days longer in the QH group. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, when using a higher valuation of the children's educational loss, the QH becomes €58 more costly than the RME. There was a statistically significant difference in chair time and visits between centres (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: The difference in costs between RME and QH is not statistically significant, however, there is a slightly higher probability that RME is more expensive than QH with a mean cost of an additional €32 per patient from a healthcare perspective. Different work procedures at different centres indicate that logistics around the patient's treatment is a more important aspect than appliance used to decrease the number of visits and save chair time and thereby also costs.

Background: The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as the smallest difference that the patient perceives as important. Furthermore, the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) is the important change measured with the benefit-harm trade-off method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the MID in orthodontic treatment duration to inform the decision regarding seeking procedures to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement and reduce treatment duration.

Methods: We constructed a survey eliciting views of the MID from adult participants from four countries undergoing orthodontic treatment. Ten questions addressed reduction in the treatment duration for both durations 12 and 24 months, and four questions were related to the reduction in treatment duration that the patients would require to undergo surgical or non-surgical adjunctive procedures. We applied a univariable random effects logistic regression model to examine the association between the participants' characteristics and the MID. Then, we fitted a multivariable logistic random effects regression including significant predictors.

Results: Four hundred and fifty adults, with a median age of 21 (interquartile range: 19-24), undergoing orthodontic treatment participated in the survey. Of the respondents, 60% considered 15 days as a trivial reduction from 12 months duration of therapy and 70% considered 15 days a trivial reduction from 24 months. Of the respondents, 48% considered the period of 2 months a moderate reduction from 12 months, and 60% considered 2 months a moderate reduction from 24 months. From these results, we inferred that patients considered reductions of approximately 1 month as the MID in the treatment duration for both 12 and 24 months. However, SWE was considerably more than the MID for most of the participants to decide undergoing surgical adjunctive procedures to reduce the time of therapy. The participants required smaller SWE to undergo non-surgical procedures compared to surgical procedures.

Conclusion: The MID in the treatment duration is one month for both treatment durations 12 and 24 months. Patients require a greater SWE than the MID to undergo adjunctive procedures to shorten the duration, particularly for surgical procedures.

Background: Initial caries lesion (ICLs) adjacent to orthodontic brackets are the most common side effect of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. The reported prevalence is uncertain and varies considerably across studies, from 27% to 97%.

Objectives: This paper was designed to evaluate and synthesize the available evidence on the prevalence and incidence rates of ICLs in relation to orthodontic treatment. Selection criteria: The review (Prospero protocol CRD42023412952) included randomized and non-randomized clinical trials of interventions, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies, published after 1990 on the prevalence or incidence of ICLs during or after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Search methods: Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase databases were searched from 1990 until 01 May 2023. The risk of bias assessment was performed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Data collection and analysis: The proportion of individuals with ICLs, reported as the number/percentage of individuals/teeth with ICLs or mean number of ICLs per subject, were used to synthesize results.

Results: The search yielded a total of 468 papers; 21 studies were included in the systematic review, 2 of which were not included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence rate [95%CI] of ICLs was 0.57% [0.48; 0.65] in 1448 patients, 0.22% [0.14; 0.33] in 11583 teeth, with a mean number of lesions equal to 2.24 [1.79; 2.70] in 484 patients evaluated. The incidence rate of new carious lesions developed during orthodontic treatment was 0.48% [0.33; 0.63] in 533 patients, 0.15% [0.08; 0.26] in 1890 teeth with a mean number of ICLs equal to 2.29 [1.12; 3.46] in 208 patients evaluated.

Limitations: Although the high number of included studies and the overall good quality, there was a significant heterogeneity in the collected data.

Conclusion: The prevalence and incidence rates of ICLs in subjects undergoing orthodontic treatment are quite high and raise some concerns in terms of risk assessment of orthodontic treatment. ICLs represent an alarming challenge for both patients and professionals. Effective caries prevention strategies during treatment need to be considered and implemented where appropriate.