Search

Abstract Background This study aims to evaluate the impact of the loss of permanent molars on the duration of orthodontic treatment for space closure and without skeletal anchorage. Methods Records at the beginning (T0) and the end (T1) of orthodontic treatment were selected retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups: loss of molar (n = 19) and control, without loss (n = 24). The impact of loss on treatment time was assessed using multiple linear regression adjusted for the number of absences, bonding failures, age, sex, PAR index at T0 and T1 at p 0.05). Conclusion Loss of the first permanent molar has a negative impact on orthodontic treatment time in cases of space closure. The treatment time is longer when there are more tooth losses and arches involved. Treatment time also increases with greater numbers of missed clinical appointments.

Abstract Background The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) performed with Propel and other mini-screws on the rate of tooth movement, pain/discomfort, periodontal health, anchorage loss, and root resorption in patients undergoing orthodontic retraction compared to a control group. Materials and methods PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, LILACS, Google Scholar, Scopus, and OpenGrey were searched without restriction. A manual search was also carried out. Only randomized clinical trials (RCT) were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using RoB 2.0 and the certainty of evidence through the GRADE tool. Results Among the twelve RCTs reviewed, five used the Propel system. Overall, the RoB was classified as low (4), moderate (5), and high (3). Two RCTs with moderate and one with a low RoB using the Propel system reported mild increases on rate of tooth movement associated with MOPs. One RCT with a moderate and another with high RoB did not find a significant effect of Propel on orthodontic movement. Regarding tooth movement, a subgroup meta-analysis found no differences between control and Propel movement (95% CI = − 0.01 to 0.75) or other mini-screws (− 0.02 to 0.31) related to rate of tooth movement per month. There was no effect of MOPs on root resorption, periodontal health, anchorage loss, and a mild effect on pain and oral health related to quality of life regardless of mini-screw type. The level of certainty was graded as low for the rate of tooth movement and pain/discomfort, as moderate for anchorage loss, and high for root resorption. Conclusion A low certainty of evidence supports that MOPs performed with Propel seem to have no significant effect on the rate of tooth movement. Moreover, this intervention does not seem to cause an increase in root resorption, periodontal heath, pain/discomfort, or anchorage loss. Thus, the Propel system does not appear to produce different results from those observed for other mini-screws.

Abstract The congenital absence of multiple teeth may share the same genetic background of the development of some types of cancer. Objective: This systematic review aimed to investigate the possible association between dental agenesis and cancer, and the perspective of agenesis as an early predictor for cancer risk. Methodology: The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and OpenGrey were searched and the risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. The GRADE tool was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Results: Six studies met the eligibility criteria. A positive co-occurrence between ovarian cancer and hypodontia was found in two articles. Three studies evaluated the association between dental agenesis and colorectal cancer and only one showed common genes for these conditions. One paper found individuals with hypodontia had a higher risk of family history of cancer. Five studies had a fair quality and one a good quality. The certainty of evidence was classified as very low. Conclusion: Notwithstanding the limited scientific evidence, there may be a possible association between dental agenesis and cancer due to genes involved in both conditions. Agenesis of multiple teeth could be an early indicator of cancer risk. Nevertheless, studies with a better level of evidence are needed to confirm this possible association.

Abstract Objectives To assess if there is any difference in pain levels between orthodontic treatment with clear aligners or fixed appliances. Materials and methods An electronic search was completed in PubMed, The Cochrane Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials, and OpenGrey databases without any restrictions until February 2019. All comparative study types contrasting pain levels between clear aligners and fixed appliances were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, ROBINS-I-Tool, or ROB 2.0 according to the study design. The level of evidence was assessed through the GRADE tool. Results After removal of duplicates, exclusion by title and abstract, and reading the full text, only seven articles were included. Five were prospective non-randomized clinical trials (CCT), one was a cross-sectional study, and one was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Two studies presented a high RoB, three a moderate RoB, and two a low RoB (including the RCT). A meta-analysis was not performed because of clinical, statistical, and methodological heterogeneity. Most of the studies found that pain levels in patients treated with Invisalign were lower than those treated with conventional fixed appliances during the first days of treatment. Differences disappeared thereafter. No evidence was identified for other brands of clear aligners. Conclusions Based on a moderate level of certainty, orthodontic patients treated with Invisalign appear to feel lower levels of pain than those treated with fixed appliances during the first few days of treatment. Thereafter (up to 3 months), differences were not noted. Malocclusion complexity level among included studies was mild. Pain is one of many considerations and predictability and technical outcome are more important, mainly considering that the difference does not seem to occur after the first months of the orthodontic treatment.

Background Faced with the global pandemic of COVID-19, declared by World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11th 2020, and the need to better understand the seasonal behavior of the virus, our team conducted this systematic review to describe current knowledge about the emergence and replicability of the virus and its connection with different weather factors such as temperature and relative humidity. Methods The review was registered with the PROSPERO database. The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, OpenGrey and Google Scholar were examined with the searches restricted to the years 2019 and 2020. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist tool. The GRADE tool was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Results The initial screening identified 517 articles. After examination of the full texts, seventeen studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Great homogeneity was observed in the findings regarding the effect of temperature and humidity on the seasonal viability and transmissibility of COVID-19. Cold and dry conditions were potentiating factors on the spread of the virus. After quality assessment, two studies had a high risk of bias, eleven studies were scored as moderate risk of bias, and four studies were classified as low risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was graded as low for both outcomes evaluated. Conclusion Considering the existing scientific evidence, warm and wet climates seem to reduce the spread of COVID-19. However, these variables alone could not explain most of the variability in disease transmission. Therefore, the countries most affected by the disease should focus on health policies, even with climates less favorable to the virus. Although the certainty of the evidence generated was classified as low, there was homogeneity between the results reported by the included studies.

BackgroundFaced with the global pandemic of COVID-19, declared by World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11th 2020, and the need to better understand the seasonal behavior of the virus, our team conducted this systematic review to describe current knowledge about the emergence and replicability of the virus and its connection with different weather factors such as temperature and relative humidity.MethodsThe review was registered with the PROSPERO database. The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, OpenGrey and Google Scholar were examined with the searches restricted to the years 2019 and 2020. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist tool. The GRADE tool was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsThe initial screening identified 517 articles. After examination of the full texts, seventeen studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Great homogeneity was observed in the findings regarding the effect of temperature and humidity on the seasonal viability and transmissibility of COVID-19. Cold and dry conditions were potentiating factors on the spread of the virus. After quality assessment, two studies had a high risk of bias, eleven studies were scored as moderate risk of bias, and four studies were classified as low risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was graded as low for both outcomes evaluated.ConclusionConsidering the existing scientific evidence, warm and wet climates seem to reduce the spread of COVID-19. However, these variables alone could not explain most of the variability in disease transmission. Therefore, the countries most affected by the disease should focus on health policies, even with climates less favorable to the virus. Although the certainty of the evidence generated was classified as low, there was homogeneity between the results reported by the included studies.

Riverine populations are typical of the Amazon region that depend on nature for subsistence. These people are considered an intermediate population between the urban and indigenous, the original Amazon habitants. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the relationship between tooth wear and age in a remote riverine population from the Amazon, located by the Tucumanduba River (n = 94), and to compare them to previous findings obtained from semi-isolated indigenous (n = 223) and urban populations (n = 40) from the Amazon region, which were examined using the same methodology. Using linear regression, tooth wear explained 54.5% of the variation in the ages of the riverine subjects (p