14 resultados para Orthodontic Appliance Design
em BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to examine the overall success of miniscrews inserted in the paramedian palatal region for support of various appliances during orthodontic treatment. METHODS The patients received 1 or 2 miniscrews in the paramedian anterior palate of 8.0-mm length and 1.6-mm diameter placed during orthodontic treatment by the same experienced orthodontist. RESULTS In total, 196 patients (121 girls, 75 boys; median age, 11.7; interquartile range, 3.7) who received 384 miniscrews were evaluated. Two hundred four miniscrews were used with rapid palatal expansion appliances, 136 with appliances for distalization of posterior teeth, and 44 with other appliances, such as transpalatal arches for tooth stabilization. The overall survival of the miniscrews was excellent (97.9%) in the cases examined. Cox regression analysis showed no difference in the overall survival rates of miniscrews loaded with different appliances for sex (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.27; P = 0.73) after adjusting for appliance and age. CONCLUSIONS This study shows that miniscrews placed in the paramedian anterior palate for supporting various orthodontic appliances have excellent survival.
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: Fixed orthodontic appliances can alter the subgingival microbiota. Our aim was to compare the subgingival microbiota and clinical parameters in adolescent subjects at sites of teeth treated with orthodontic bands with margins at (OBM) or below the gingival margin (OBSM), or with brackets (OBR). METHODS: Microbial samples were collected from 33 subjects (ages, 12-18 years) in treatment more than 6 months. The microbiota was assessed by the DNA-DNA checkerboard hybridization method. RESULTS: Bacterial samples were taken from 83 OBR,103 OBSM, and 54 OBM sites. Probing pocket depths differed by orthodontic type (P <0.001) with mean values of 2.9 mm (SD, 0.6) at OBSM sites, 2.5 mm (SD, 0.6) at OBM sites, and 2.3 mm (SD, 0.5) at OBR sites. Only Actinomyces israelii (P <0.001) and Actinomyces naeslundii (P <0.001) had higher levels at OBR sites, whereas Neisseria mucosa had higher levels at sites treated with OBSM or OBM (P <0.001). Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans was found in 25% of sites independent of the appliance. CONCLUSIONS: Different types of orthodontic appliances cause minor differences in the subgingival microbiota (A israelii and A naeslundii) and higher levels at sites treated with orthodontic brackets. More sites with bleeding on probing and deeper pockets were found around orthodontic bands.
Resumo:
Proper sample size estimation is an important part of clinical trial methodology and closely related to the precision and power of the trial's results. Trials with sufficient sample sizes are scientifically and ethically justified and more credible compared with trials with insufficient sizes. Planning clinical trials with inadequate sample sizes might be considered as a waste of time and resources, as well as unethical, since patients might be enrolled in a study in which the expected results will not be trusted and are unlikely to have an impact on clinical practice. Because of the low emphasis of sample size calculation in clinical trials in orthodontics, it is the objective of this article to introduce the orthodontic clinician to the importance and the general principles of sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials to serve as guidance for study designs and as a tool for quality assessment when reviewing published clinical trials in our specialty. Examples of calculations are shown for 2-arm parallel trials applicable to orthodontics. The working examples are analyzed, and the implications of design or inherent complexities in each category are discussed.
Resumo:
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.
Does published orthodontic research account for clustering effects during statistical data analysis?
Resumo:
In orthodontics, multiple site observations within patients or multiple observations collected at consecutive time points are often encountered. Clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared to individual randomized trials and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this study to assess to what degree clustering effects are considered during design and data analysis in the three major orthodontic journals. The contents of the most recent 24 issues of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) from December 2010 backwards were hand searched. Articles with clustering effects and whether the authors accounted for clustering effects were identified. Additionally, information was collected on: involvement of a statistician, single or multicenter study, number of authors in the publication, geographical area, and statistical significance. From the 1584 articles, after exclusions, 1062 were assessed for clustering effects from which 250 (23.5 per cent) were considered to have clustering effects in the design (kappa = 0.92, 95 per cent CI: 0.67-0.99 for inter rater agreement). From the studies with clustering effects only, 63 (25.20 per cent) had indicated accounting for clustering effects. There was evidence that the studies published in the AO have higher odds of accounting for clustering effects [AO versus AJODO: odds ratio (OR) = 2.17, 95 per cent confidence interval (CI): 1.06-4.43, P = 0.03; EJO versus AJODO: OR = 1.90, 95 per cent CI: 0.84-4.24, non-significant; and EJO versus AO: OR = 1.15, 95 per cent CI: 0.57-2.33, non-significant). The results of this study indicate that only about a quarter of the studies with clustering effects account for this in statistical data analysis.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: To test the null hypotheses: (1) there is no difference in the caries protective effect of ozone and Cervitec/Fluor Protector during multibracket (MB) appliance therapy, and (2) DIAGNOdent and quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) are not superior to a visual evaluation of initial caries lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty right-handed patients with a very poor oral hygiene who required full MB appliance therapy were analyzed during 26 months. In a split-mouth-design, the four quadrants of each patient were either treated with ozone, a combination of Cervitec and Fluor Protector, or served as untreated controls. The visible plaque index (VPI) and white spot formation were analyzed clinically. DIAGNOdent and QLF were used for a quantitative assessment of white spot formation. RESULTS: The average VPI in all four dental arch quadrants amounted to 55.6% and was independent of the preventive measure undertaken. In the quadrants treated with Cervitec/Fluor Protector, only 0.7% of the areas developed new, clinically visible white spots. This was significantly (P < .05) less than in the quadrants treated with ozone (3.2%). The lesions detected with QLF only partially corresponded to the clinically detected white spots, while DIAGNOdent proved to be unable to detect any changes at all. CONCLUSIONS: The caries protective effect of Cervitec/Fluor Protector during MB therapy was superior to ozone, and a visual evaluation of initial caries lesions was superior to both DIAGNOdent and QLF.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
High-quality research should form the basis of all clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials currently provide the gold standard for investigating the effectiveness of treatment interventions and these are increasingly being used in orthodontics. Here we discuss the reasons why this form of investigation provides the most useful evidence for assessing treatment outcome. The methods available to achieve true randomization, a fundamental component in the design of these trials, are also discussed. In addition, we focus on how to minimize bias in clinical research, not only during the design and management of a trial, but also when disseminating results. We focus on the importance of using control groups correctly and describe methods that are available to adequately power a trial. Finally, we emphasise the importance of accurate and transparent reporting, which facilitates correct communication and assessment of the evidence.
Resumo:
Factorial designs for clinical trials are often encountered in medical, dental, and orthodontic research. Factorial designs assess two or more interventions simultaneously and the main advantage of this design is its efficiency in terms of sample size as more than one intervention may be assessed on the same participants. However, the factorial design is efficient only under the assumption of no interaction (no effect modification) between the treatments under investigation and, therefore, this should be considered at the design stage. Conversely, the factorial study design may also be used for the purpose of detecting an interaction between two interventions if the study is powered accordingly. However, a factorial design powered to detect an interaction has no advantage in terms of the required sample size compared to a multi-arm parallel trial for assessing more than one intervention. It is the purpose of this article to highlight the methodological issues that should be considered when planning, analysing, and reporting the simplest form of this design, which is the 2 × 2 factorial design. An example from the field of orthodontics using two parameters (bracket type and wire type) on maxillary incisor torque loss will be utilized in order to explain the design requirements, the advantages and disadvantages of this design, and its application in orthodontic research.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES To identify the timing of significant arch dimensional increases during orthodontic alignment involving round and rectangular nickel-titanium (NiTi) wires and rectangular stainless steel (SS). A secondary aim was to compare the timing of changes occurring with conventional and self-ligating fixed appliance systems. METHODS In this non-primary publication, additional data from a multicenter randomised trial initially involving 96 patients, aged 16 years and above, were analysed. The main pre-specified outcome measures were the magnitude and timing of maxillary intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar dimensions. Each participant underwent alignment with a standard Damon (Ormco, Orange, CA) wire sequence for a minimum of 34 weeks. Blinding of clinicians and patients was not possible; however, outcome assessors and data analysts were kept blind to the appliance type during data analysis. RESULTS Complete data were obtained from 71 subjects. Significant arch dimensional changes were observed relatively early in treatment. In particular, changes in maxillary inter-first and second premolar dimensions occurred after alignment with an 0.014in. NiTi wire (P<0.05). No statistical differences in transverse dimensions were found between rectangular NiTi and working SS wires for each transverse dimension (P>0.05). Bracket type had no significant effect on the timing of the transverse dimensional changes. CONCLUSIONS Arch dimensional changes were found to occur relatively early in treatment, irrespective of the appliance type. Nickel-titanium wires may have a more profound effect on transverse dimensions than previously believed. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE On the basis of this research orthodontic expansion may occur relatively early in treatment. Nickel-titanium wires may have a more profound effect on transverse dimensions than previously believed.
Resumo:
Sample size calculations are advocated by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to analyse the reporting of sample size calculations in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals. The performance of sample size calculations was assessed and calculations verified where possible. Related aspects, including number of authors; parallel, split-mouth, or other design; single- or multi-centre study; region of publication; type of data analysis (intention-to-treat or per-protocol basis); and number of participants recruited and lost to follow-up, were considered. Of 139 RCTs identified, complete sample size calculations were reported in 41 studies (29.5 per cent). Parallel designs were typically adopted (n = 113; 81 per cent), with 80 per cent (n = 111) involving two arms and 16 per cent having three arms. Data analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis in a small minority of studies (n = 18; 13 per cent). According to the calculations presented, overall, a median of 46 participants were required to demonstrate sufficient power to highlight meaningful differences (typically at a power of 80 per cent). The median number of participants recruited was 60, with a median of 4 participants being lost to follow-up. Our finding indicates good agreement between projected numbers required and those verified (median discrepancy: 5.3 per cent), although only a minority of trials (29.5 per cent) could be examined. Although sample size calculations are often reported in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals, presentation is suboptimal and in need of significant improvement.
Resumo:
SUMMARY BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Orthodontic management of maxillary canine impaction (MCI), including forced eruption, may result in significant root resorption; however, the association between MCI and orthodontically induced root resorption (OIRR) is not yet sufficiently established. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to comparatively evaluate the severity of OIRR of maxillary incisors in orthodontically treated patients with MCI. Additionally, impaction characteristics were associated with OIRR severity. SUBJECTS AND METHODS The sample comprised 48 patients undergoing fixed-appliance treatment-24 with unilateral/bilateral MCI and 24 matched controls without impaction. OIRR was calculated using pre- and post-operative panoramic tomograms. The orientation of eruption path, height, sector location, and follicle/tooth ratio of the impacted canine were also recorded. Mann-Whitney U-test and univariate and multivariate linear mixed models were used to test for the associations of interest. RESULTS Maxillary central left incisor underwent more OIRR in the impaction group (mean difference = 0.58mm, P = 0.04). Overall, the impaction group had 0.38mm more OIRR compared to the control (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.03, 0.74; P = 0.04). However, multivariate analysis demonstrated no difference in the amount of OIRR between impaction and non-impaction groups overall. A positive association between OIRR and initial root length was observed (95% CI: 0.08, 0.27; P < 0.001). The severity of canine impaction was not found to be a significant predictor of OIRR. LIMITATIONS This study was a retrospective study and used panoramic tomograms for OIRR measurements. CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that MCI is a weak OIRR predictor. Interpretation of the results needs caution due to the observational nature of the present study.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the risk of failure of fixed orthodontic retention protocols. DATA Screening for inclusion eligibility, quality assessment of studies and data extraction was performed independently by two authors. SOURCES The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched with no restrictions on publication date or language using detailed strategies. The main outcome assessed was bond failure. STUDY SELECTION Twenty-seven studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Randomised controlled trials and prospective studies were evaluated according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Retrospective studies were graded employing the predetermined criteria of Bondemark. RESULTS Nine randomised controlled trials, four of which were of low quality, were identified. Six studies had a prospective design and all were of low quality. Twelve studies were retrospective. The quality of trial reporting was poor in general. Four studies assessing glass-fibre retainers, three RCTs and one prospective, reported bond failures from 11 to 71%, whereas twenty studies evaluating multistranded retainers – nine RCTs, two prospective and nine retrospective – reported failures ranging from 12 to 50%. One comparison was performed, multistranded wires vs. polyehtylene woven ribbon (RR: 1.74; 95% CI: 0.45, 6.73; p=0.42). CONCLUSION The quality of the available evidence is low. No conclusive evidence was found in order to guide orthodontists in the selection of the best protocol. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Although fixed orthodontic retainers have been used for years in clinical practice, the selection of the best treatment protocol still remains a subjective issue. The available studies, and their synthesis, cannot provide reliable evidence in this field.
Resumo:
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.