In-vitro assessment of the forces generated by lingual fixed retainers

The aim of this article was to assess the effect of wire adaptation on the lingual surfaces of mandibular anterior teeth with 3 types of lingual retainers on the development of vertical and labiolingual forces.

Long-term effectiveness of canine-to-canine bonded flexible spiral wire lingual retainers

The flexible spiral wire (FSW) canine-to-canine lingual retainer bonded to all 6 anterior teeth is a frequently used type of mandibular fixed retainer. This study aimed to assess the long-term effectiveness of FSW canine-to-canine lingual retainers in maintaining the alignment of the mandibular anterior teeth after orthodontic treatment.

Release of bisphenol-A from a light-cured adhesive bonded to lingual fixed retainers

Our aim was to quantitatively determine the bisphenol-A (BPA) released from a light-cured orthodontic adhesive used to bond lingual fixed retainers.

Severe complication of a bonded mandibular lingual retainer

Bonding a flexible spiral wire retainer to the lingual surfaces of all 6 anterior mandibular teeth is a commonly used type of retention. Complications are rare but can be serious enough to produce biologic damage. This article presents a serious complication of a lingual flexible spiral wire retainer. Four years after the orthodontic treatment, a 20-year-old man sought treatment for a broken flexible spiral wire retainer. The clinical examination showed about 35° of buccal root torque of that tooth. A cone-beam computed tomography image showed that the root and the apex of the tooth were almost completely out of the bone on its buccal side. Surprisingly, the tooth's vitality was preserved. The tooth was moved back, nearly to its original position; clinically, only a gingival recession remained. Orthodontists and dentists should be aware of possible complications of bonded retainers. Patients should be clearly informed how to detect problems at an early stage.

Survival of bonded lingual retainers with chemical or photo polymerization over a 2-year period: a single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION The objective of this trial was to compare the survival rates of mandibular lingual retainers bonded with either chemically cured or light-cured adhesive after orthodontic treatment. METHODS Patients having undergone orthodontic treatment at a private orthodontic office were randomly allocated to fixed retainers placed with chemically cured composite or light-cured composite. Eligibility criteria included no active caries, restorations, or fractures on the mandibular anterior teeth, and adequate oral hygiene. The main outcome was any type of first-time lingual retainer breakage; pattern of failure (adapted adhesive remnant index scores) was a secondary outcome. Randomization was accomplished with random permuted blocks of 20 patients with allocation concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Patients were reviewed at 1, 3, and 6 months and then every 6 months after placement of the retainer until completion of the study. Data were analyzed using survival analysis including Cox regression; sensitivity analysis was carried out after data imputation for subjects lost to follow-up. RESULTS Two hundred twenty patients (median age, 16 years; interquartile range, 2; range, 12-47 years) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either chemical or light curing. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, the median follow-up period was 2.19 years (range, 0.003-3.64 years), and 16 patients were lost to follow-up. At a minimum follow-up of 2 years, 47 of 110 (42.7%) and 55 of 110 (50.0%) retainers had some type of failure with chemically cured and light-cured adhesive, respectively (log-rank test, P = 0.35). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, and the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.70; P = 0.47). There was weak evidence that age is a significant predictor for lingual retainer failures (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = 0.08). Adhesive remnant index scoring was possible for only 66 of the 102 (64.7%) failures and did not differ between composites (Fisher exact test, P = 0.16). No serious harm was observed other than gingivitis associated with plaque accumulation. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicated no evidence that survival of mandibular lingual retainers differs between chemically and light-cured adhesives. The overall failure rate was 46.4%; however, this included any type of failure, which may have exaggerated the overall failure rate.

A comparative assessment of torque generated by lingual and conventional brackets

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of bracket type on the labiopalatal moments generated by lingual and conventional brackets. Incognito™ lingual brackets (3M Unitek), STb™ lingual brackets (Light Lingual System; ORMCO), In-Ovation L lingual brackets (DENTSPLY GAC), and conventional 0.018 inch slot brackets (Gemini; 3M Unitek) were bonded on identical maxillary acrylic resin models with levelled and aligned teeth. Each model was mounted on the orthodontic measurement and simulation system and 10 0.0175 × 0.0175 TMA wires were used for each bracket type. The wire was ligated with elastomerics into the Incognito, STb, and conventional brackets and each measurement was repeated once after religation. A 15 degrees buccal root torque (+15 degrees) and then a 15 degrees palatal root torque (-15 degrees) were gradually applied to the right central incisor bracket. After each activation, the bracket returned to its initial position and the moments in the sagittal plane were recorded during these rotations of the bracket. One-way analysis of variance with post hoc multiple comparisons (Tukey test at 0.05 error rate) was conducted to assess the effect on bracket type on the generated moments. The magnitude of maximum moment at +15 degrees ranged 8.8, 8.2, 7.1, and 5.8 Nmm for the Incognito, STb, conventional Gemini, and the In-Ovation L brackets, respectively; similar values were recorded at -15 degrees: 8.6, 8.1, 7.0, and 5.7 Nmm, respectively. The recorded differences of maximum moments were statistically significant, except between the Incognito and STb brackets. Additionally, the torque angles were evaluated at which the crown torque fell well below the minimum levels of 5.0 Nmm, as well as the moment/torque ratio at the last part of the activation/deactivation curve, between 10 and 15 degrees. The lowest torque expression was observed at the self-ligating lingual brackets, followed by the conventional brackets. The Incognito and STb lingual brackets generated the highest moments.

A comparative assessment of forces and moments generated by lingual and conventional brackets

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of bracket type on the labiopalatal forces and moments generated in the sagittal plane. Incognito™ lingual brackets (3M Unitek), STb™ lingual brackets (Light Lingual System; ORMCO), and conventional 0.018 inch slot brackets (Gemini; 3M Unitek) were bonded on three identical maxillary acrylic resin models, with a palatally displaced right lateral incisor. The transfer trays for the indirect bonding of the lingual brackets were constructed in certified laboratories. Each model was mounted on the orthodontic measurement and simulation system and ten 0.013 inch CuNiTi wires were used for each bracket type. The wire was ligated with elastomerics and each measurement was repeated once after re-ligation. The labiopalatal forces and the moments in the sagittal plane were recorded on the right lateral incisor. One-way analysis of variance and post hoc Scheffe pairwise comparisons were used to assess the effect on bracket type on the generated forces and moments. The magnitude of forces ranged from 1.62, 1.27, and 1.81 N for the STb, conventional, and Incognito brackets, respectively; the corresponding moments were 2.01, 1.45, and 2.19 N mm, respectively. Bracket type was a significant predictor of the generated forces (P < 0.001) and moments (P < 0.001). The produced forces were different among all three bracket types, whereas the generated moments differed between conventional and lingual brackets but not between lingual brackets.

Microstructural and mechanical characterization of contemporary lingual orthodontic brackets.

OBJECTIVES To investigate the composition and the microstructural and mechanical characterization of three different types of lingual brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS Incognito™ (3M Unitek), In-Ovation L (DENTSPLY GAC) and STb™ (Light Lingual System, ORMCO) lingual brackets were studied under the scanning electron microscope employing backscattered electron imaging and their elemental composition was analysed by energy-dispersive X-ray microanalysis. Additionally, Vickers hardness was assessed using a universal hardness-testing machine, and the indentation modulus was measured according to instrumented indentation test. Two-way analysis of variance was conducted employing bracket type and location (base and wing) as discriminating variable. Significant differences among groups were allocated by post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison analysis at 95% level of significance. RESULTS Three different phases were identified for Incognito and In-Ovation L bracket based on mean atomic number contrast. On the contrary, STb did not show mean atomic contrast areas and thus it is recognized as a single phase. Incognito is a one-piece bracket with the same structure in wing and base regions. Incognito consists mainly of noble metals while In-Ovation L and STb show similar formulations of ferrous alloys in wing and base regions. No significant differences were found between ferrous brackets in hardness and modulus values, but there were significant differences between wing and base regions. Incognito illustrated intermediate values with significant differences from base and wing values of ferrous brackets. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS Significant differences exist in microstructure, elemental composition, and mechanical properties among the brackets tested; these might have a series of clinical implications during mechanotherapy.

Randomization in clinical trials in orthodontics: its significance in research design and methods to achieve it

Randomization is a key step in reducing selection bias during the treatment allocation phase in randomized clinical trials. The process of randomization follows specific steps, which include generation of the randomization list, allocation concealment, and implementation of randomization. The phenomenon in the dental and orthodontic literature of characterizing treatment allocation as random is frequent; however, often the randomization procedures followed are not appropriate. Randomization methods assign, at random, treatment to the trial arms without foreknowledge of allocation by either the participants or the investigators thus reducing selection bias. Randomization entails generation of random allocation, allocation concealment, and the actual methodology of implementing treatment allocation randomly and unpredictably. Most popular randomization methods include some form of restricted and/or stratified randomization. This article introduces the reasons, which make randomization an integral part of solid clinical trial methodology, and presents the main randomization schemes applicable to clinical trials in orthodontics.

Appropriateness of reporting statistical results in orthodontics: the dominance of P values over confidence intervals

The purpose of this study was to search the orthodontic literature and determine the frequency of reporting of confidence intervals (CIs) in orthodontic journals with an impact factor. The six latest issues of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, the European Journal of Orthodontics, and the Angle Orthodontist were hand searched and the reporting of CIs, P values, and implementation of univariate or multivariate statistical analyses were recorded. Additionally, studies were classified according to the type/design as cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, and clinical trials, and according to the subject of the study as growth/genetics, behaviour/psychology, diagnosis/treatment, and biomaterials/biomechanics. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics followed by univariate examination of statistical associations, logistic regression, and multivariate modelling. CI reporting was very limited and was recorded in only 6 per cent of the included published studies. CI reporting was independent of journal, study area, and design. Studies that used multivariate statistical analyses had a higher probability of reporting CIs compared with those using univariate statistical analyses. Misunderstanding of the use of P values and CIs may have important implications in implementation of research findings in clinical practice.

Evaluation of location and dimensions of lingual foramina using limited cone-beam computed tomography

To assess retrospectively the frequency and location of mandibular lingual foramina and their bony canals with limited cone-beam computed tomography.

Assessment of speech perception and communication skills in adolescents with cochlear implants for pre- and peri-lingual deafness

This study aimed to assess speech perception and communication skills in adolescents between ages 8 and 18 that received cochlear implants for pre- and peri-lingual deafness.

A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Abstract Objectives: To assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria). Materials and Methods: Systematic reviews (n  =  109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken. Results: The mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P < .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable analysis indicated that journal of publication and number of authors was significantly associated with the PRISMA score. The association between AMSTAR score and modified PRISMA score was also found to be highly statistically significant. Conclusion: Compliance of orthodontic SRs published in orthodontic journals with PRISMA guidelines was deficient in several areas. The quality of reporting assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

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.

Cluster randomized clinical trials in orthodontics: design, analysis and reporting issues

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) use as the unit of randomization clusters, which are usually defined as a collection of individuals sharing some common characteristics. Common examples of clusters include entire dental practices, hospitals, schools, school classes, villages, and towns. Additionally, several measurements (repeated measurements) taken on the same individual at different time points are also considered to be clusters. In dentistry, CRTs are applicable as patients may be treated as clusters containing several individual teeth. CRTs require certain methodological procedures during sample calculation, randomization, data analysis, and reporting, which are often ignored in dental research publications. In general, due to similarity of the observations within clusters, each individual within a cluster provides less information compared with an individual in a non-clustered trial. Therefore, clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared with non-clustered randomized designs, and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this article to highlight with relevant examples the important methodological characteristics of cluster randomized designs as they may be applied in orthodontics and to explain the problems that may arise if clustered observations are erroneously treated and analysed as independent (non-clustered).