Search

OBJECTIVE: To obtain the opinion of British Orthodontic Society (BOS) members in relation to possible patterns of prescription of orthodontic extractions over the past 5-10 years and to relate any changes identified to treatment objectives, facial and smile aesthetics, and treatment strategies and adjuncts. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire. SETTING: On-line survey of BOS members. METHODS: A 14-item on-line questionnaire was sent to orthodontic practitioners for completion. The questionnaire covered demographics, possible changes in frequency of prescribed extractions with specific information concerning the effect of patient age, and the influence of other factors including alternative approaches to space creation, evolving treatment mechanics, smile and facial aesthetics, and retention protocols. RESULTS: Two hundred and eight responses were obtained with 95.6% (n = 199) reporting reduced extraction prescription over the last 5-10 years. Overall, 29.9% and 35.5% felt that their threshold for extractions had increased by more than 2 mm in adolescents and adults, respectively. Facial (n = 145; 69.7%) and smile (n = 127; 61.1%) aesthetics, and increased use of inter-proximal reduction (n = 102; 49%) were the factors most frequently reported as having either a moderate or major influence on this trend. Based on ordinal logistical regression analyses, no significant relationship was found between threshold for extractions and work setting (P = 0.675; O.R. 0.51; 95% CI: 0.39, 1.85) or level of orthodontic experience (P = 0.15; O.R. 1.02; 95% CI: 0.15, 1.05), although a higher threshold for extractions was more likely among users of conventional than self-ligating brackets (P = 0.001; O.R. 4.74; 95% CI: 1.95, 11.5). CONCLUSIONS: A reduced tendency to prescribe orthodontic extractions over the past 5-10 years among British Orthodontic Society members was identified. Comparative clinical research exploring the relative merits of extraction and non-extraction approaches could be timely.

To report the opinions of specialist orthodontists regarding the profile, characteristics and treatment of adults currently undergoing orthodontic treatment in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) Design/setting: A national cross-sectional questionnaire study in the ROI.A pilot-tested questionnaire was distributed to 122 specialist orthodontists in the ROI. Questions addressed general and treatment information for current adult orthodontic patients. Those whose treatment involved orthognathic surgery were not excluded.A response of 83% was obtained. Ninety-five per cent of specialists reported treating adults, most of whom were self-referred and were typically professional, female and aged 25-35 years. The overall ratio quoted of professionals to non-professionals was almost 3:2. For 50% of specialists, males were estimated to account for 20-40% of their adult cases and for 23%, this increased to an estimated 40-60%. Class II division 1 malocclusion and skeletal II were considered the most common dentofacial characteristics. Occlusal features encountered in decreasing frequency were generalised crowding, increased overjet, deep overbite, late lower incisor crowding, spacing and impacted teeth. Fifteen per cent reported that at least 10% of their adult cases required orthodontics with maxillofacial surgery but 8% reported that this was at least 50%. Treatment challenges commonly acknowledged were overbite reduction, anchorage management, 'black triangles' and overjet reduction. Tooth whitening was reckoned to be used by 19% of specialists. Aesthetic upper and stainless steel lower brackets were indicated to be used most often whereas only 19% used clear aligners and 10% used lingual appliances often.The profile and characteristics of adults currently undergoing orthodontic treatment in the ROI were diverse. Higher estimates were quoted for self- than for general dental practitioner-referral. A high percentage of treatment was reported to be undertaken for non-professionals and males. A wide range of treatment and varying use of appliance types were cited.

This study evaluated the quality, reliability and readability of information on the Internet on adult orthodontics.A quality assessment of adult orthodontic websites.Postgraduate Orthodontic Unit, Cork University Dental School and Hospital, Cork, Ireland.An Internet search using three search engines (Google, Yahoo and Bing) was conducted using the terms ('adult orthodontics' and 'adult braces'). The first 50 websites from each engine and under each search term were screened and exclusion criteria applied. Included websites were then assessed for quality using four methods: the HON seal, JAMA benchmarks, the DISCERN instrument and the LIDA tool. Readability of included websites was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES).Only 13 websites met the inclusion criteria. Most were of US origin (n = 8; 61%). The authors of the websites were dentists (n = 5; 39%), professional organizations (n = 2; 15%), past patients (n = 2; 15%) and unspecified (n = 4; 31%). Only 1 website displayed the HON seal and three websites contained all JAMA benchmarks. The mean overall score for DISCERN was 3.9/5 and the mean total LIDA score was 115/144. The average FRES score was 63.1/100.The number of informative websites on adult orthodontics is low and these are of moderate quality. More accurate, high-quality Internet resources are required on adult orthodontics. Recommendations are made as to how this may be achieved.

To compare mean anterior (AR) and mean overall (OR) tooth size ratios, prevalence of clinically significant tooth size discrepancies (TSDs) and correlation between AR and OR in subjects with Class II division 1 and Class III malocclusion treated by surgical-orthodontic or orthodontic means.Retrospective, cross-sectional.State-funded and private clinics.From pre-treatment cohorts of 770 surgical and 610 non-surgical subjects, Class II division 1 and Class III malocclusion groups were identified with 60 surgical and 60 non-surgical subjects, comprising 30 males and 30 females, in each.AR and OR were calculated by landmarking digital models. Differences in AR and OR and their relationship were analysed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a correlation coefficient, respectively. The proportions of the surgical and non-surgical groups with a TSD were assessed using logistic regression. Intra-examiner reproducibility involved re-landmarking 30 randomly selected image sets and differences in ARs and ORs were compared using a paired t-test. Random error was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Analyses were performed using SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) at the 5% level of significance.There were no statistically significant differences associated with the measurement of either the mean AR (P = 0·913) or the mean OR (P = 0·874). ICC values were very high (AR = 0·95; OR = 0·90). Differences existed between both Class II and Class III surgical (AR: P0·001; OR: P0·001) and non-surgical groups (AR: P = 0·012; OR: P = 0·003). The AR and OR relationship was strong (correlation coefficient = 0·72). The highest percentage of clinically significant TSDs was seen in the AR of both Class II and Class III surgical groups (23·3%).In the cohort examined: AR and OR differed significantly for malocclusion groups. The prevalence of clinically significant TSDs did not differ significantly between surgical and non-surgical groups although the highest percentage of clinically significant TSDs was recorded for AR in Class II and Class III surgical cases. AR and OR were closely related.

To investigate the use of bonded molar tubes (BMTs) by specialist orthodontists.Prospective postal questionnaire.Ireland.Registered members of the Orthodontic Society of Ireland.A questionnaire was posted to registered members of the Orthodontic Society of Ireland. It investigated demographics, pattern of use, reasons for use and techniques for placement of BMTs.A 74% response rate was obtained. In more than 80% of cases, BMTs were used on first and second permanent molars by 52% and 33% of orthodontists respectively. BMT usage was adopted by 97% of respondents in the previous decade. Direct bonding was used by all for BMT placement. Etch times for molars, compared to other teeth, increased from 15 to 30 seconds by 51% of orthodontists. Of the respondents, 97% used light-cured adhesives and 17% used self-etching primers. Molar tube holders were preferred by 54% for placement. Only with a history of epilepsy, were bands preferred to BMTs. BMTs were regarded as more cost-effective than molar bands by 66% of responding clinicians.Specialist orthodontists preferred BMTs to bands on first permenent molars. Direct bonding was favoured using a 30-second etch, a light-cured primer and adhesive with specialized molar tube holders. BMTs were perceived to be more cost-effective than molar bands.

OBJECTIVE: To screen patients with oligoarticular and polyarticular forms of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) to determine (i) the severity of their class II skeletal pattern; (ii) temporomandibular joint signs and symptoms and (iii) use of systemic corticosteroids. DESIGN: Cross-sectional screening. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Sixty-eight children with JIA aged between 9 and 16 years old who were screened at four regional treatment centres in the UK. METHOD: Patients were screened clinically and radiographically for the presence of class II skeletal pattern and temporomandibular (TMJ) pain dysfunction syndrome. In addition, the JIA sub-type and history of disease activity and medication were recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Class II skeletal pattern, TMJ signs and symptoms, use of systemic corticosteroids. RESULTS: The mean ANB values were 4.2 degrees (SD = 2.9 degrees) in the oligoarticular group and 5.1 degrees (SD = 3.8 degrees) in the polyarticular group. Just under one-third of children had a moderate or severe class II skeletal pattern and a further quarter of children had a mild class II skeletal pattern. Clinical signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint pain dysfunction syndrome were low (

To evaluate the effectiveness of different retention strategies used to maintain tooth position after treatment by orthodontic appliances.The search strategy was carried out according to the standard Cochrane systematic review methodology. The following databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCT) or controlled clinical trials (CCT): Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of trials were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied when considering the studies to be included and a quality assessment made for each paper.The primary outcome was the amount of relapse. Secondary outcomes were survival of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and patient satisfaction.Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Five studies (2 RCTs and 3 CCTs) fulfilled the inclusion criteria.There was evidence, based on data from one trial, that there was a statistically significant increase in stability in both the mandibular (P0.001) and maxillary anterior segments (P0.001) when the CSF (circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy) was used in conjunction with a Hawley retainer, compared with a Hawley retainer alone. However, this evidence may be unreliable due to flaws in the study design. There was also weak, unreliable evidence that teeth settle quicker with a Hawley retainer than with a clear overlay retainer after 3 months.There is currently insufficient evidence on which to base the clinical practice of orthodontic retention.

To evaluate the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing white spot lesion (WSL) demineralization during orthodontic treatment and compare all modes of fluoride delivery.The search strategy for the review was carried out according to the standard Cochrane systematic review methodology. The following databases were searched for RCTs or CCTs: Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied when considering studies to be included. Authors of trials were contacted for further data.The primary outcome of the review was the presence or absence of WSL by patient at the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included any quantitative assessment of enamel mineral loss or lesion depth.Six reviewers independently, in duplicate, extracted data, including an assessment of the methodological quality of each trial.Fifteen trials provided data for this review, although none fulfilled all the methodological quality assessment criteria. One study found that a daily NaF mouthrinse reduced the severity of demineralization surrounding an orthodontic appliance (lesion depth difference -70.0 microm; 95% CI -118.2 to -21.8 microm). One study found that use of a glass ionomer cement (GIC) for bracket bonding reduced the prevalence of WSL (Peto OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.15-0.84) compared with a composite resin. None of the studies fulfilled all of the methodological quality assessment criteria.There is some evidence that the use of a daily NaF mouthrinse or a GIC for bonding brackets might reduce the occurrence and severity of WSL during orthodontic treatment. More high quality, clinical research is required into the different modes of delivering fluoride to the orthodontic patient.

Part I of this paper describes the background, general concepts, available techniques and the clinical applications of recording external craniofacial morphology in three dimensions. Part II explores the different 3D techniques of imaging the dental arches, and their possible uses in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment.

The aims of this in vitro study were to compare the cariostatic potential of a resin modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Ortho LC) to that of a resin control (Transbond) for bracket bonding and to compare the effect of extrinsic fluoride application on the cariostatic potential of each material.Ex vivo study.Orthodontic brackets were bonded to 40 extracted premolars, 20 with Fuji Ortho LC and 20 with Transbond. The teeth were subjected to pH cycling, pH 4.55, and pH 6.8, over a 30-day period. Ten teeth bonded with each material were immersed in a 1000 ppm fluoride solution for 2 minutes each day. Fluoride release was measured throughout the study from all teeth. After 30 days, the teeth were assessed visually for signs of enamel decalcification.Significant differences in decalcification existed macroscopically between all four groups of teeth, with the exception of those bonded with Fuji Ortho LC alone compared with Transbond alone (P = 0.22), and Fuji Ortho LC alone compared with Transbond with added fluoride (P = 0.3). Fluoride release from Fuji Ortho LC alone fell to minimal values, but with the addition of extrinsic fluoride the levels fell initially and then followed an upward trend. There was minimal fluoride release, from Transbond alone, but with daily addition of extrinsic fluoride, subsequent fluoride release was increased. Significant differences existed in the amount of fluoride released between all groups, except comparing Fuji Ortho LC alone and Transbond with added fluoride.The results of this study have indicated that with an in vitro tooth-bracket model, the creation of white spot inhibition could best be achieved by the use of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement, supplemented with fluoride exposure. The least protection was afforded by the composite control. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement alone and the composite with added fluoride demonstrated equivalent protection.

The past decade, has seen a wholesale shift in medical UK training towards outcome-based learning with the consequent development of an assessment method concentrating on what doctors do in everyda...

At an orthodontic meeting in recent years, a colleague recounted to me that when a presenter had finished their presentation on a systematic review, the person beside leaned over and said to my col...

To evaluate retention protocols and use of vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) among specialist orthodontists.Postal/electronic (e-) questionnaire.Republic of Ireland.Members of the Dental Council of Ireland Specialist Register of Orthodontists and/or Orthodontic Society of Ireland.A pilot-tested questionnaire was distributed to 123 eligible specialist orthodontists. Questions addressed respondent demographics, preferred retainer choice in the maxillary and mandibular arches, prescribed wear protocols, VFR characteristics and factors influencing retainer choice. Statistical analyses were performed using PASW® version 18.The response rate was 82%. VFRs were the most commonly chosen retainer, prescribed by 53% of respondents in the maxilla and 33% in the mandible. Full-time followed by part-time wear of removable retainers (RRs) was the wear protocol favoured by the majority (70-76%). Full occlusal coverage was the VFR design favoured by 93%. VFR sheet thicknesses of 1.0 mm (68%) and 0.75 mm (16%) were most commonly prescribed. Seventeen per cent were aware that their patients used their VFRs as a receptacle for dental bleaching gel. Life-time wear of retainers was advised by 67-78%. The operator factor that most influenced retainer choice was the pre-treatment situation (88%).VFRs were the most common retainer choice in the maxilla and mandible with full-time wear followed by part-time wear of RRs favoured by most. Full occlusal coverage with a thickness of 1.0 mm was the VFR design prescribed by the majority. More than one in six specialist orthodontists were aware that their patients used their VFRs as a receptacle for dental bleaching gel.

To determine the magnitude and reproducibility of forces generated by clinicians during laceback placement using a force-measuring typodont.An in vitro investigation.An in vitro typodont model was developed, which incorporated strain gauges attached to a personal computer to allow measurement of the force generated on application of lacebacks. Ten operators were instructed to place lacebacks five times, on two separate occasions (T1 and T2). Inter-operator and intra-operator forces produced at T1 and T2 were compared.Forces generated by laceback placement.The forces generated by clinicians ranged from 0 to 11.1 N. There were significant differences in the mean forces generated by the different operators (P0.001), with differences between time points not being consistent across all operators (P0.001). Some operators were more consistent than others in the forces generated.In vitro, there was a large inter-operator variation in the forces produced during laceback placement. With the in vitro model used in this study, few operators applied similar forces when placing lacebacks on two separate occasions.

To compare the mean retentive strength, predominant site of band failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth at deband and survival time of orthodontic micro-etched bands cemented with chlorhexidine-modified (CHXGIC) or conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC).In vitro study.Dental Materials Laboratory.One-hundred-and-twenty intact, caries-free third molars were collected from patients attending for third molar surgery. These were stored for 3 months in distilled water and decontaminated in 0.5% chloramine. To assess retentive strength, 80 teeth were randomly selected and 40 were banded with each cement. Testing was undertaken using a Nene M3000 testing machine at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Following debanding, the predominant site of failure was recorded as cement-enamel or cement-band interface. The amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface following deband was assessed and coded. Survival time for another 40 banded specimens, 20 cemented with each cement, was assessed following application of mechanical stress in a ball mill.Retentive strength, predominant site of failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface, survival time.Mean retentive strength for bands cemented with CHXGIC (0.32 MPa, SD 0.09) or GIC (0.28 MPa, SD 0.07) did not differ significantly (p=0.05). All bands failed at the enamel-cement interface. There was no significant difference in the amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface after deband for each cement type (p=0.23). The mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC was 7.0 and 6.4 hours, respectively (p=0.23).There was no significant difference in mean retentive strength, amount of cement remaining on the tooth after deband or mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC. Bands cemented with either cement failed predominantly at the enamel-cement interface. The results suggest that CHXGIC may have comparable clinical performance to GIC for band cementation.

To evaluate which orthodontic adhesives (a). bond orthodontic brackets to teeth more reliably and (b). are more effective at preventing decalcification.The search strategy for the literature review was carried out according to the standard Cochrane systematic review methodology. The Cochrane Clinical Trials Register and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Register were searched for randomized clinical trials and controlled clinical trials. All volumes that had not already been assessed by the Oral Health Group in the European Journal of Orthodontics, American Journal of Orthodontics, Journals of Orthodontics, and Angle Orthodontist were hand-searched. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied when considering the studies to be included in this review.The primary outcome measure was the failure of the orthodontic adhesive. A secondary outcome of decalcification occurring around the orthodontic bracket was also recorded, if data were available.Two randomized clinical trials and one controlled clinical trial were identified that fulfilled all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The trials compared: (a). light- and chemically-cured composite; (b). chemically-cured composite and conventional glass ionomer cement; and (c). chemically-cured composite and light-cured compomer.Each paper was quality assessed by two people independently. A qualitative analysis of the trials in the review is presented. The data presentation, for the majority of the trials, precluded the use of suggested Cochrane Health Group statistical analysis.It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this review; however, suggestions are made for methods of improving future research involving orthodontic adhesives.

The ability of an experimental coating, Odyssey, to prevent demineralisation ex vivo was compared with that of a fluoride varnish, Duraphat and a chlorhexidine-containing varnish, Cervitec.an ex vivo single-blind study.Hard tissue research laboratory.thirty bovine enamel blocks 0.5 cm x 1.5 cm were divided into 6 groups of 5 specimens. The enamel blocks were then allocated to one of 6 surface treatments.(1) surface left unprepared (control), (2) Duraphat application, (3) Cervitec application, (4) experimental polymer coating, (5) enamel conditioned with 10% citric acid and coated with the experimental polymer coating Odyssey (O + C), (6) enamel etched for 30 sec with 37% phosphoric acid and coated with the experimental coating (O + E). All specimens were cycled for 7 days through a daily procedure of demineralisation for 4 hours and remineralisation for 20 hours, and exposed to an equivalent of 2 months toothbrushing. A single operator blinded to the treatment allocation of each specimen carried artificial lesion depth assessment out using computer-assisted transverse microradiography.The control group had the greatest mean lesion depth (97.16 + 29.8 microm) with the Duraphat group exhibiting the lowest mean lesion depth (24.53 + 15.44 microm). The Duraphat, Odyssey, O + C and O + E groups all had significantly less lesion depth when compared with no surface preparation (p0.05 for all comparisons). There were no significant differences between any of the Odyssey groups.The efficacy of Duraphat application in preventing demineralisation ex vivo has been demonstrated in the present study, but clinical trials are required to assess its usefulness in orthodontic practice.

Much guidance exists on what constitutes goodresearch practice and generally journal websites giveclear and helpful instructions on what type of manu-script is suitable for submission as well as on how toprepare manuscripts for submission. There appears tobe much less, however, in the literature with regardto replying to referees’ comments when the manuscriptis returned.