Journal of Orthodontics最新文献

Objective: To apply the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) to cases that have been assessed by the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA) using the orthodontic treatment protocol (OTO), then compare the NHSBSA outcome assessment with weighted (W) and unweighted (U) PAR scores.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Setting: UK.

Cases: Anonymised orthodontic cases submitted to the NHSBSA.

Methods: A sample of 30 reports from 2021/2022 were randomly selected to include different standard of treatment grades. The records were de-identified and the pre- and post-treatment study models were PAR scored by a calibrated assessor.

Results: The mean percentage change in PAR was higher in cases from green reports (W: 78%; U: 79%) than amber (W: 68%; U: 67%) and red reports (W: 65%; U: 65%). Alignment and poor buccal segment interdigitation were the most reported concerns for cases included in the red and amber graded reports. A residual increased overjet was the most common occlusal feature leading to PAR scores not being more than 70% improved. Only slight agreement was shown between OTP and PAR using the kappa statistic, and the chi-square statistical test found that outcome measures are statistically significantly different.

Conclusion: There are fundamental differences between OTP and PAR, and general agreement between them has not been demonstrated. The NHSBSA Report provides a more critical outcome assessment than PAR, identifying elements that are not assessed or measured by the PAR index.

Objective: To investigate the accuracy of full arch scans taken using the iTero Element 2^® under clinical settings.

Design: Prospective clinical study.

Methods: A customised upper removable appliance (URA) with four spheres (A-D) was fabricated from a maxillary arch iTero^® scan for a 24-year-old patient. Six linear values were measured on the URA using a high-accuracy coordinate measuring machine. A total of 60 intra-oral iTero^® scans were taken by two operators (HA and AS) with the test URA inserted to the participant's maxillary dentition at T1 and T2. Geomagic Control X software was used to measure the six linear distances between the reference spheres (1-4) in all scans. Comparisons between distances on full arch scans to true distances on the URA were made to evaluate accuracy.

Results: The median distance to the prepared bench top URA mean was significantly away from zero for each operator and timepoint across all measurements except AD versus 14 and BD versus 24. Statistically significant, although clinically non-significant, differences in median linear distances in relation to the prepared benchtop URA were observed between evaluators in segments AB versus 12 (operator 1 -0.021 mm vs. operator 2 -0.06 mm) and AC vs. 13 (operator 1 -0.044 mm vs. operator 2 -0.167 mm) at T1.

Conclusion: The accuracy of scanners is defined as the trueness and precision of the captured scans to the dental arches. The accuracy of iTero Element 2^® is acceptable for diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics. Length and location of the scanned segment and scanning sequence 'protocol' affect accuracy.

Objectives: To evaluate the characteristics and content of YouTube™ videos created by patients undergoing orthodontic fixed appliance treatment and to assess the content accuracy of these videos.

Design: A mixed-methods quantitative and qualitative study.

Data source: YouTube™ webpage.

Methods: The term 'braces' was used to search for relevant videos on the YouTube™ webpage between 18 August and 30 August 2020, with no limits imposed regarding how long the video had been available on YouTube™. Videos were included if they were made by patients and were predominantly about patients' experiences during treatment with labial fixed appliances. The main themes/subthemes of the included videos were identified. A checklist was then developed to assess accuracy of the video content for two of the main themes and the videos were assessed against the checklist.

Results: The video search identified 350 videos, of which 64 were selected as potentially eligible; 41 were subsequently excluded as they related primarily to the bond up/debond experience or had minimal information about orthodontics. This meant that 23 videos were ultimately included for analysis. Six main themes were identified in the videos: problems with fixed appliances, effects of fixed appliances, oral hygiene maintenance, dietary advice, treatment duration/appointment frequency and auxiliaries used with fixed appliances. From the 23 videos, 20 were assessed against the checklist for content accuracy related to two selected themes: oral hygiene maintenance and dietary advice. The majority of videos had low content accuracy scores, indicating that important and relevant content was generally missing.

Conclusion: Several included videos focused on oral hygiene maintenance and dietary advice associated with fixed appliances; however, the content was incomplete and not always accurate. This is concerning to the profession, and it is therefore recommended that clinicians consider collaborating with patients to produce videos that are patient-centred and that also contain accurate information.

Objective: To investigate the impact of written instructions, about post-bonding pain, on patients' pain perception and analgesic consumption and to evaluate the correlation of pain with personality types.

Design: Two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial.

Setting: University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.

Methods: Participants included adolescents in the permanent dentition with mild or moderate crowding.

Randomisation: The participants were randomly allocated, using computer-generated random list, into two groups.

Interventions: After bonding and archwire insertion, all participants received oral instructions on potential pain occurrence and pain control. Participants in the study group also received written information on post-bonding pain.

Outcomes: Pain intensity was evaluated using the Numerical Rating Scale immediately after (T0), 2 days (T1) and 7 days (T2) after the placement of the fixed orthodontic appliance. Analgesic consumption was assessed as yes or no, and personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory. Operators who scored pain intensity and recorded analgesic consumption and personality traits were blinded to the group allocation. Statistical analyses included the t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, Spearman correlations and stepwise regression analysis.

Results: The highest rate of pain was recorded at T1 (P < 0.001). No statistically significant difference in pain perception between groups was observed. There was no statistically significant difference in analgesic consumption between the two groups (P = 0.81). The correlations between personality traits and pain perception were not significant.

Conclusion: The additional written information had little impact on pain perception, and it had no relationship to personality types. The perception of pain and analgesic consumption were not affected by the provision of additional written information (P = 0.81). Participants' personality types did not affect the impact of the information given.

Aim: To evaluate the three-dimensional position and root resorption of incisors after anterior segment retraction (ASR) using friction versus frictionless mechanics.

Participants and methods: Thirty female patients (13-18 years) with bimaxillary protrusion were randomly allocated into two groups. In the intervention group, ASR was undertaken using an elastomeric chain rendering 160 g/side extending between mini-screw implant and a hook crimped on 0.017 × 0.025-inch stainless-steel wire distal to the lateral incisor. In the comparison group, ASR was undertaken using closing T-loops fabricated from 0.017 × 0.025-inch titanium molybdenum alloy (TMA) wire rendering comparable retraction force. In both groups, the canine brackets were ligated after retraction to the mini-screw implants that were inserted in both the upper and lower arches bilaterally. The primary outcome was the three-dimensional changes in the position of the incisors. The secondary outcome was root resorption. These were measured from cone-beam computed tomography scans.

Results: Statistically significant decreases in the upper (UI) and lower incisors (LI) crown torque were seen in both groups; however, the difference between groups was not statistically or clinically significant (UI MD -2.04°; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -8.02-3.95; LI MD -0.49°; 95% CI = -7.06-6.08). Significant tipping of upper (MD -1.17°; 95% CI = -2.06--0.27) and lower (MD -1.13°; 95% CI = -1.66--0.60) incisors was found in the friction, but not the frictionless group after retraction; however, the changes were not clinically significant. Significant lower incisor intrusion was found in both groups after retraction; however, the difference between groups was not statistically or clinically significant (MD -0.61°; 95% CI = -1.99-0.77). Statistically significant decreases in the UI and LI root length were seen in both groups. The difference between groups for UI changes was statistically significant (MD 0.54 mm; 95% CI = -0.02-1.07) but probably not clinically significant.

Conclusion: Considering the limitations in the current study, there was no advantage of either mechanics over the other regarding the final position of incisors. The likelihood of root resorption should be considered when frictionless mechanics are used for retraction of incisors.

Registry: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04878939).

Introduction: Orthodontic therapy in patients with osteopetrosis (OP) of the jaws has typically been contraindicated owing to the presence of poorly perfused and extremely compact bone, and the potential risk for infection and osteomyelitis. As such, completed orthodontic cases in association with OP have rarely been published.

Patient concerns: A patient aged 14 years 6 months, with no known diagnosis of OP, sought orthodontic assessment for anterior crowding.

Clinical findings: The patient exhibited a straight facial profile and increased mandibular facial height, competent lips, shallow mentolabial sulcus with mild mentalis strain, flat/reverse smile arc and wide buccal corridors on smiling.

Primary diagnosis: The patient had a Class I incisor relationship on Class I skeletal bases with bilateral Class I molars and Class II canine relationships. This was complicated by a crossbite involving the lateral incisors and a Bolton discrepancy due to small maxillary lateral incisors. A radiologic assessment revealed polyostotic OP of the oromaxillofacial complex.

Interventions: Treatment consisted of maxillary and mandibular fixed orthodontic therapy, bite turbos and elastics to level and align the dentition. Extractions of permanent teeth were not needed.

Outcomes: At the conclusion of treatment, there was a slight left Class II malocclusion, with incomplete intercuspation on the left side due to tooth size discrepancy, possibly attributed to inadequate elastics compliance and the presence of osteopetrotic bone. The treatment was completed in 3 years, 1 year longer than anticipated.

Conclusion: This report represents the second published account of a patient with OP successfully managed with comprehensive orthodontic care and without osseous complications. Obtaining cephalometric measurements on OP-affected patients may be imprecise owing to the presence of extremely dense bone and difficulty to identify bony landmarks. To reduce osteopetrotic sequelae, attending clinicians should consider reduced exertional orthodontic forces and closely monitor patients for adverse alveolar events.

Aim: To evaluate the effect of chewing gum on the rate of space closure, oral hygiene, pain during space closure and appliance breakage in patients undergoing fixed appliance therapy.

Design: A prospective, single-centre, two-arm, parallel, double-blinded randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Orthodontic unit of a privately funded hospital, Chennai, India.

Participants: In total, 28 participants were randomly allocated into a chewing gum group (CGG) (n = 14) or a control group (CG) (n = 14).

Methods: Baseline data were collected at the start of retraction (T0), at 4 weeks (T1), 8 weeks (T2) and 12 weeks (T3) after the start of retraction. Rate of space closure, pain, oral hygiene and appliance breakage were assessed at T1, T2 and T3. Data were analysed using an independent t-test with P < 0.05 considered to be statistically significant.

Results: The mean rate of space closure in the CGG was 0.9 ± 0.2 mm/month and 0.8 ± 0.2 mm/month in the CG (P = 0.07, 95% confidence intervals [CI] were 0.80-1.01 for the CGC and 0.70-0.91 for the CG). In both the groups, oral hygiene became worse between T0 and T3. At T0 and T1, participants in the CGG reported less pain at 24 h and 7 days when compared to the CG (P < 0.05). At T2 and T3, participants in the CGG reported less pain at 0 h, 24 h and 7 days when compared to the CG (P < 0.05). Appliance breakage in both groups was minimal, with an odds ratio of 0.7 (95% CI 0.1-3.8) and was similar (P = 0.66).

Conclusion: There was minimal increase that was clinically not significant in the rate of space closure with chewing gum. Chewing gum ensured better oral hygiene, helped alleviate pain and had no effect on appliance breakage during space closure.

Background: New technologies have paved the way for newer fabrication techniques, such as rapid prototyping, which has gained popularity in the fabrication of several orthodontic appliances including retainers.

Aim: To evaluate the stability, survival time and periodontal health associated with vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs), bonded retainers (BRs) and rapid prototype retainers (RPRs) over a period of 12 months in retention.

Study design: Prospective clinical study.

Methods: A total of 72 participants completing fixed orthodontic treatment were allocated to the following three groups by the investigators based upon their initial malocclusion, compliant and preferences: VFR; BR; and RPR. The primary outcome was Little's Irregularity Index (LII). Other stability parameters, including arch length (AL), inter-canine width (ICW) and inter-molar width (IMW), were also assessed immediately after debonding (T0) and 12 months (T2) after debonding. In addition, survival time, and calculus index and gingival index (GI) were assessed.

Results: LII showed a significant difference (P = 0.00) between the groups and was increased in the VFR group (0.18 ± 0.22 mm) compared to the BR (0.03 ± 0.05 mm) and RPR (0.01 ± 0.03 mm) groups but was not clinically significant. The mean survival time of maxillary retainers was longest for the RPR group (220.63 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 194.1-247.16) but there was no significant difference between the three groups (P = 0.43). The mean survival time of mandibular retainers was higher and the same for the VFR and RPR groups (240 days; 95% CI = 240-240) and there was no significant difference between the three groups (P = 0.38). The calculus index score (P = 0.00) was statistically significant between the groups, with an increased score for the BR group (0.33 ± 0.27) compared to the VFR (0.07 ± 0.16) and RPR (0.13 ± 0.22) groups. Similarly, the GI score (P = 0.02) was statistically significant between the groups and was increased in the BR group (0.01 ± 0.19) compared to the VFR (-0.15 ± 0.18) and RPR (-0.06 ± 0.15) groups. The increase in calculus index and GI scores for the BR group were not clinically significant.

Conclusion: There were no clinically significant differences between the three retainer groups in terms of stability, periodontal health and time to failure.

Objective: To understand patients' motivations for pursuing treatment, to appreciate what information patients seek and to explore potential factors affecting decision making in adults considering, undergoing or who have had orthodontic treatment in the private sector.

Design: Cross-sectional questionnaire study.

Setting: Online questionnaire.

Participants: A total of 209 (83% women, 16% men, 1% preferred not to say) completed responses were received.

Methods: Once piloted, the final survey was made available online to adults in the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland (RoI) who were either considering having orthodontic treatment, currently undergoing treatment or had recently completed treatment in the private sector.

Results: The most commonly selected motivating factor was to 'improve the appearance of my teeth' (82%). The information sought related predominantly to treatment duration (64%), potential end results (56%), types of appliances that were available (55%) and cost (52%). The two most commonly reported social factors that had influenced participants to consider treatment were 'seeing myself on social media' (31%) and 'it is more socially acceptable to have braces' (31%).

Conclusion: While this area remains relatively underexplored in the literature, it is crucial to develop a comprehensive understanding due to the increasing number of adults seeking orthodontic treatment. This study not only reinforces the existing knowledge regarding adults seeking orthodontic treatment, such as the predominant role of aesthetics as a motivating factor, but also introduces some novel insights. Specifically, we highlight the influence of social factors on decision-making processes and the importance of effectively communicating the duration of treatment to patients.