Factors influencing fixed retention practices in German-speaking Switzerland : A survey.

AIM Several surveys evaluate different retention approaches among orthodontists, but none exist for general dentists. The primary aim of this survey was to record the preferred fixed retainer designs and retention protocols amongst general dentists and orthodontists in Switzerland. A secondary aim was to investigate whether retention patterns were associated with parameters such as gender, university of graduation, time in practice, and specialist status. METHODS An anonymized questionnaire was distributed to general dentists (n = 401) and orthodontists (n = 398) practicing in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. A total of 768 questionnaires could be delivered, 562 (73.2 %) were returned and evaluated. Descriptive statistics were performed and responses to questions of interest were converted to binary outcomes and analyzed using multiple logistic regression. Any associations between the answers and gender, university of graduation (Swiss or foreign), years in practice, and specialist status (orthodontist/general dentist) were assessed. RESULTS Almost all responding orthodontists (98.0 %) and nearly a third of general dentists (29.6 %) reported bonding fixed retainers regularly. The answers were not associated with the practitioner's gender. The university of graduation and number of years in practice had a moderate impact on the responses. The answers were mostly influenced by specialist status. CONCLUSION Graduation school, years in practice, and specialist status influence retention protocol, and evidence-based guidelines for fixed retention should be issued to minimize these effects. Based on the observation that bonding and maintenance of retainers are also performed by general dentists, these guidelines should be taught in dental school and not during post-graduate training.

Nasolabial symmetry and esthetics in cleft lip and palate: analysis of 3D facial images

OBJECTIVES To determine the relationship between nasolabial symmetry and esthetics in subjects with orofacial clefts. MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighty-four subjects (mean age 10 years, standard deviation 1.5) with various types of nonsyndromic clefts were included: 11 had unilateral cleft lip (UCL); 30 had unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA); and 43 had unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLAP). A 3D stereophotogrammetric image of the face was taken for each subject. Symmetry and esthetics were evaluated on cropped 3D facial images. The degree of asymmetry of the nasolabial area was calculated based on all 3D data points using a surface registration algorithm. Esthetic ratings of various elements of nasal morphology were performed by eight lay raters on a 100 mm visual analog scale. Statistical analysis included ANOVA tests and regression models. RESULTS Nasolabial asymmetry increased with growing severity of the cleft (p = 0.029). Overall, nasolabial appearance was affected by nasolabial asymmetry; subjects with more nasolabial asymmetry were judged as having a less esthetically pleasing nasolabial area (p < 0.001). However, the relationship between nasolabial symmetry and esthetics was relatively weak in subjects with UCLAP, in whom only vermilion border esthetics was associated with asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS Nasolabial symmetry assessed with 3D facial imaging can be used as an objective measure of treatment outcome in subjects with less severe cleft deformity. In subjects with more severe cleft types, other factors may play a decisive role. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Assessment of nasolabial symmetry is a useful measure of treatment success in less severe cleft types.

Are claims made in orthodontic journal advertisements evidence-supported?

OBJECTIVE To examine the supporting evidence of advertisements published in six leading orthodontic journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS The 2012-2013 printed issues of American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Australian Orthodontic Journal, Journal of Orthodontics, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, and Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics were screened for advertisements implying superior performance compared with competitor products. Advertisements were classified according to type of product, availability, and currency of supporting references. RESULTS A total of 99 unique advertisements claiming clinical benefit or superiority were identified. The overwhelming majority of the identified advertisements promoted appliance products (62.6%), orthodontic materials (14.1%), and dental operatory equipment, including imaging systems (12.1%). Advertisements were found to provide references or not regardless of the product type. Half of the advertisements referred to at least one peer-reviewed publication, whereas unpublished studies were cited by 25% of the advertisements. Most of the referenced articles were published within the past 5 years. CONCLUSIONS The scientific background of advertisements in the orthodontic literature appears limited. While surveillance of journal advertising needs to be regulated, clinicians are urged to critically appraise the claims being made in orthodontic print advertisements by consulting the associated existing evidence.