Does published orthodontic research account for clustering effects during statistical data analysis?

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.

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.

Survival of palatal miniscrews used for orthodontic appliance anchorage: a retrospective cohort study

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.

Development of labial gingival recessions in orthodontically treated patients

INTRODUCTION Our aim was to assess the prevalence of gingival recessions in patients before, immediately after, and 2 and 5 years after orthodontic treatment. METHODS Labial gingival recessions in all teeth were scored (yes or no) by 2 raters on initial, end-of-treatment, and posttreatment (2 and 5 years) plaster models of 302 orthodontic patients (38.7% male; 61.3% female) selected from a posttreatment archive. Their mean ages were 13.6 years (SD, 3.6; range, 9.5-32.7 years) at the initial assessment, 16.2 years (SD, 3.5; range, 11.7-35.1 years) at the end of treatment, 18.6 years (SD, 3.6; range, 13.7-37.2 years) at 2 years posttreatment, and 21.6 (SD, 3.5; range, 16.6-40.2 years) at 5 years posttreatment. A recession was noted (scored "yes") if the labial cementoenamel junction was exposed. All patients had a fixed retainer bonded to either the mandibular canines only (type I) or all 6 mandibular front teeth (type II). RESULTS There was a continuous increase in gingival recessions after treatment from 7% at end of treatment to 20% at 2 years posttreatment and to 38% at 5 years posttreatment. Patients less than 16 years of age at the end of treatment were less likely to develop recessions than patients more than 16 years at the end of treatment (P = 0.013). The prevalence of recessions was not associated with sex (P = 0.462) or extraction treatment (P = 0.32). The type of fixed retainer did not influence the development of recessions in the mandibular front region (P = 0.231). CONCLUSIONS The prevalence of gingival recessions steadily increases after orthodontic treatment. The recessions are more prevalent in older than in younger patients. No variable, except for age at the end of treatment, seems to be associated with the development of gingival recessions.

Quantitative comparison of 3 enamel-stripping devices in vitro: how precisely can we strip teeth?

INTRODUCTION In this in-vitro study, we aimed to investigate the predictability of the expected amount of stripping using 3 common stripping devices on premolars. METHODS One hundred eighty extracted premolars were mounted and aligned in silicone. Tooth mobility was tested with Periotest (Medizintechnik Gulden, Modautal, Germany) (8.3 ± 2.8 units). The selected methods for interproximal enamel reduction were hand-pulled strips (Horico, Hapf Ringleb & Company, Berlin, Germany), oscillating segmental disks (O-drive-OD 30; KaVo Dental, Biberach, Germany), and motor-driven abrasive strips (Orthofile; SDC Switzerland, Lugano-Grancia, Switzerland). With each device, the operator intended to strip 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mm on the mesial side of 15 teeth. The teeth were scanned before and after stripping with a 3-dimensional laser scanner. Superposition and measurement of stripped enamel on the most mesial point of the tooth were conducted with Viewbox software (dHal Software, Kifissia, Greece). The Wilcoxon signed rank test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were applied; statistical significance was set at alpha ≤ 0.05. RESULTS Large variations between the intended and the actual amounts of stripped enamel, and between stripping procedures, were observed. Significant differences were found at 0.1 mm of intended stripping (P ≤ 0.05) for the hand-pulled method and at 0.4 mm of intended stripping (P ≤ 0.001 to P = 0.05) for all methods. For all scenarios of enamel reduction, the actual amount of stripping was less than the predetermined and expected amount of stripping. The Kruskal-Wallis analysis showed no significant differences between the 3 methods. CONCLUSIONS There were variations in the stripped amounts of enamel, and the stripping technique did not appear to be a significant predictor of the actual amount of enamel reduction. In most cases, actual stripping was less than the intended amount of enamel reduction.