Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review

AIM: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on the survival rates of palatal implants, Onplants((R)), miniplates and mini screws. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic MEDLINE search supplemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies on palatal implants, Onplants((R)), miniplates and miniscrews with a mean follow-up time of at least 12 weeks and of at least 10 units per modality having been examined clinically at a follow-up visit. Assessment of studies and data abstraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Reported failures of used devices were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of failure and survival proportions. RESULTS: The search up to January 2009 provided 390 titles and 71 abstracts with full-text analysis of 34 articles, yielding 27 studies that met the inclusion criteria. In meta-analysis, the failure rate for Onplants((R)) was 17.2% (95% CI: 5.9-35.8%), 10.5% for palatal implants (95% CI: 6.1-18.1%), 16.4% for miniscrews (95% CI: 13.4-20.1%) and 7.3% for miniplates (95% CI: 5.4-9.9%). Miniplates and palatal implants, representing torque-resisting temporary anchorage devices (TADs), when grouped together, showed a 1.92-fold (95% CI: 1.06-2.78) lower clinical failure rate than miniscrews. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence in the literature, palatal implants and miniplates showed comparable survival rates of >or=90% over a period of at least 12 weeks, and yielded superior survival than miniscrews. Palatal implants and miniplates for temporary anchorage provide reliable absolute orthodontic anchorage. If the intended orthodontic treatment would require multiple miniscrew placement to provide adequate anchorage, the reliability of such systems is questionable. For patients who are undergoing extensive orthodontic treatment, force vectors may need to be varied or the roots of the teeth to be moved may need to slide past the anchors. In this context, palatal implants or miniplates should be the TADs of choice.

State of the science on controversial topics: orthodontic therapy and gingival recession (a report of the Angle Society of Europe 2013 meeting)

BACKGROUND Controversy exists in the literature between the role of orthodontic treatment and gingival recession. Whilst movement of teeth outside the alveolar bone has been reported as a risk factor for gingival recession, others have found no such association. FINDINGS The Angle Society of Europe devoted a study day to explore the evidence surrounding these controversies. The aim of the day was for a panel of experts to evaluate the current evidence base in relation to either the beneficial or detrimental effects of orthodontic treatment on the gingival tissue. CONCLUSIONS There remains a relatively weak evidence base for the role of orthodontic treatment and gingival recession and thus a need to undertake a risk assessment and appropriate consent prior to the commencement of treatment. In further prospective, well designed trials are needed.

Maxillary sinus floor extension and posterior tooth inclination in adolescent patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with maxillary first molar extractions

INTRODUCTION Our objective was to investigate potential associations between maxillary sinus floor extension and inclination of maxillary second premolars and second molars in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion whose orthodontic treatment included maxillary first molar extractions. METHODS The records of 37 patients (18 boys, 19 girls; mean age, 13.2 years; SD, 1.62 years) treated between 1998 and 2004 by 1 orthodontist with full Begg appliances were used in this study. Inclusion criteria were white patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, sagittal overjet of ≥4 mm, treatment plan including extraction of the maxillary first permanent molars, no missing teeth, and no agenesis. Maxillary posterior tooth inclination and lower maxillary sinus area in relation to the palatal plane were measured on lateral cephalograms at 3 time points: at the start and end of treatment, and on average 2.5 years posttreatment. Data were analyzed for the second premolar and second molar inclinations by using mixed linear models. RESULTS The analysis showed that the second molar inclination angle decreased by 7° after orthodontic treatment, compared with pretreatment values, and by 11.5° at the latest follow-up, compared with pretreatment. There was evidence that maxillary sinus volume was negatively correlated with second molar inclination angle; the greater the volume, the smaller the inclination angle. For premolars, inclination increased by 15.4° after orthodontic treatment compared with pretreatment, and by 8.1° at the latest follow-up compared with baseline. The volume of the maxillary sinus was not associated with premolar inclination. CONCLUSIONS We found evidence of an association between maxillary second molar inclination and surface area of the lower sinus in patients treated with maxillary first molar extractions. Clinicians who undertake such an extraction scheme in Class II patients should be aware of this potential association and consider appropriate biomechanics to control root uprighting.

Split-mouth designs in orthodontics: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trials

SUMMARY Split-mouth designs first appeared in dental clinical trials in the late sixties. The main advantage of this study design is its efficiency in terms of sample size as the patients act as their own controls. Cited disadvantages relate to carry-across effects, contamination or spilling of the effects of one intervention to another, period effects if the interventions are delivered at different time periods, difficulty in finding similar comparison sites within patients and the requirement for more complex data analysis. Although some additional thought is required when utilizing a split-mouth design, the efficiency of this design is attractive, particularly in orthodontic clinical studies where carry-across, period effects and dissimilarity between intervention sites does not pose a problem. Selection of the appropriate research design, intervention protocol and statistical method accounting for both the reduced variability and potential clustering effects within patients should be considered for the trial results to be valid.

Gingival recessions and the change of inclination of mandibular incisors during orthodontic treatment

SUMMARY A recent systematic review demonstrated that, overall, orthodontic treatment might result in a small worsening of periodontal status. The aim of this retrospective study was to test the hypothesis that a change of mandibular incisor inclination promotes development of labial gingival recessions. One hundred and seventy-nine subjects who met the following inclusion criteria were selected: age 11-14 years at start of orthodontic treatment (TS), bonded retainer placed immediately after treatment (T₀), dental casts and lateral cephalograms available pre-treatment (TS), post-treatment (T₀), 2 years post-treatment (T₂), and 5 years post-treatment (T₅). Depending on the change of lower incisor inclination during treatment (ΔInc_Incl), the sample was divided into three groups: Retro (N = 34; ΔInc_Incl ≤ -1 degree), Stable (N = 22; ΔInc_Incl > -1 degree and ≤1 degree), and Pro (N = 123; ΔInc_Incl > 1 degree). Clinical crown heights of mandibular incisors and the presence of gingival recessions in this region were assessed on plaster models. Fisher's exact tests, one-way analysis of variance, and regression models were used for analysis of inter-group differences. The mean increase of clinical crown heights (T₀ to T₅) of mandibular incisors ranged from 0.6 to 0.91 mm in the Retro, Stable, and Pro groups, respectively; the difference was not significant (P = 0.534). At T₅, gingival recessions were present in 8.8, 4.5, and 16.3 per cent patients from the Retro, Stable, and Pro groups, respectively. The difference was not significant (P = 0.265). The change of lower incisors inclination during treatment did not affect development of labial gingival recessions in this patient group.

Maxillary canine impaction in orthodontic patients with and without agenesis: A cross-sectional radiographic study

ABSTRACT Objective: To assess potential associations between maxillary canine impaction (MCI) and agenesis status as well as between MCI and gender. Materials and Methods: The records of 182 orthodontic patients with agenesis (excluding the third molars) and 630 orthodontic patients without agenesis were examined. Diagnosis of MCI was based on pretreatment panoramic radiographs. Maxillary canines that had not erupted as a result of physical barrier or deflection in the eruption path at the dental age of at least 12 years were considered impacted. Logistic regression analysis was used to test for the associations of interest. Results: MCI was detected in 5.6% (n  =  35) of the nonagenesis group (28 female and 7 male participants) and in 18.1% (n  =  33) of the agenesis group (20 female and 13 male participants). Bilateral impaction was detected in 12 patients (34.3%) of the nonagenesis group and in 11 patients (33.3%) of the agenesis group. There was evidence that maxillary lateral incisor agenesis (odds ratio  =  5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-10.5, P < .001) and second premolar agenesis (odds ratio  =  2.6, 95% CI 1.0-6.6, P  =  .042) were significant MCI predictors after adjusting for gender. The odds of MCI were 69% higher in female versus male subjects after adjusting for agenesis status (95% CI 0.97-2.92, P  =  .063). Conclusions: This study indicates that there is evidence that agenesis status is a strong predictor of MCI, whereas gender is a weak predictor of MCI. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the results because of the observational nature of the present study.

Bisphenol-A and residual monomer leaching from orthodontic adhesive resins and polycarbonate brackets: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION The objective of this systematic review was to assess the short- and long-term release of components of orthodontic adhesives and polycarbonate brackets in the oral environment. METHODS Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The following electronic databases with no language and publication date restrictions were searched: MEDLINE (via Ovid and PubMed), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, and CENTRAL. Unpublished literature was searched on ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, and Pro-Quest Dissertation Abstracts and Thesis database. The reference lists of all eligible studies were checked for additional studies. Two review authors performed data extraction independently and in duplicate using data collection forms. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or the involvement of an arbiter. RESULTS No randomized controlled trial was identified. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, observational studies were included. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. All were observational studies conducted in vivo or in vitro. The bisphenol-A release from orthodontic bonding resins was found to be between 0.85 and 20.88 ng per milliliter in vivo, and from traces to 65.67 ppm in vitro. Polycarbonate brackets released amounts of 22.24 μg per gram in ethanol solution and 697 μg per gram after 40 months in water. Bis-GMA and TEGDMA leaching in vitro reached levels of 64 and 174 mg per 10 μL, respectively. Because of the heterogeneity in methodologies and reporting, only qualitative synthesis was performed. CONCLUSIONS The available evidence on this topic derived from observational in-vivo and in-vitro studies that represent a moderate level of evidence. The variety of setups and the different units allied to the diversity of reporting among studies did not allow calculation of pooled estimates.

The effectiveness of laceback ligatures during initial orthodontic alignment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lacebacks may be used to limit unwanted incisor proclination during initial orthodontic alignment; however, their use has not met with universal approval. This systematic review aims to appraise the evidence in relation to the effectiveness of lacebacks in controlling incisor position during initial alignment. Electronic database searches of published literature (MEDLINE via Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, and IBECS) and unpublished literature were performed. Search terms used included randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, random allocation, double blind method, orthodontics, and laceback. Data were extracted using custom forms. Risk of bias assessment was made using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. The quality of the evidence was also assessed using GRADE. Mean differences in incisor inclination and antero-posterior changes in incisor and molar position during alignment were calculated. Two studies involving 97 participants were found to be at low risk of bias and were included in the quantitative synthesis. The random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of lacebacks was associated with 0.5 mm greater posterior movement of the incisors during alignment; this finding was of limited clinical importance and statistically non-significant [95 per cent confidence interval (CI): -1.25, 0.25, P = 0.19]. Little difference (0.46 mm) was also found between laceback and non-laceback groups with regards to mesial molar movement (95 per cent CI: -0.33, 1.24, P = 0.26). According to the GRADE assessment, the overall quality of evidence relating to the use of lacebacks was high. There is no evidence to support the use of lacebacks for the control of the sagittal position of the incisors during initial orthodontic alignment.

Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

The aims of this study were to assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) using AMSTAR and to compare the prevalence of meta-analysis in both review types. A literature search was undertaken to identify SRs that consisted of hand-searching five major orthodontic journals [American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (February 2002 to July 2011)] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2000 to July 2011. Methodological quality of the included reviews was gauged using the AMSTAR tool involving 11 key methodological criteria with a score of 0 or 1 given for each criterion. A cumulative grade was given for the paper overall (0-11); an overall score of 4 or less represented poor methodological quality, 5-8 was considered fair and 9 or greater was deemed to be good. In total, 109 SRs were identified in the five major journals and on the CDSR. Of these, 26 (23.9%) were in the CDSR. The mean overall AMSTAR score was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria; a similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the CDSR (P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis (β = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTAR.