Constraints on the spatiotemporal accuracy of interceptive action: effects of target size on hitting a moving object

Results of two experiments are reported that examined how people respond to rectangular targets of different sizes in simple hitting tasks. If a target moves in a straight line and a person is constrained to move along a linear track oriented perpendicular to the targetrsquos motion, then the length of the target along its direction of motion constrains the temporal accuracy and precision required to make the interception. The dimensions of the target perpendicular to its direction of motion place no constraints on performance in such a task. In contrast, if the person is not constrained to move along a straight track, the targetrsquos dimensions may constrain the spatial as well as the temporal accuracy and precision. The experiments reported here examined how people responded to targets of different vertical extent (height): the task was to strike targets that moved along a straight, horizontal path. In experiment 1 participants were constrained to move along a horizontal linear track to strike targets and so target height did not constrain performance. Target height, length and speed were co-varied. Movement time (MT) was unaffected by target height but was systematically affected by length (briefer movements to smaller targets) and speed (briefer movements to faster targets). Peak movement speed (Vmax) was influenced by all three independent variables: participants struck shorter, narrower and faster targets harder. In experiment 2, participants were constrained to move in a vertical plane normal to the targetrsquos direction of motion. In this task target height constrains the spatial accuracy required to contact the target. Three groups of eight participants struck targets of different height but of constant length and speed, hence constant temporal accuracy demand (different for each group, one group struck stationary targets = no temporal accuracy demand). On average, participants showed little or no systematic response to changes in spatial accuracy demand on any dependent measure (MT, Vmax, spatial variable error). The results are interpreted in relation to previous results on movements aimed at stationary targets in the absence of visual feedback.

Interceptive timing: prior knowledge matters

Fast interceptive actions, such as catching a ball, rely upon accurate and precise information from vision. Recent models rely on flexible combinations of visual angle and its rate of expansion of which the tau parameter is a specific case. When an object approaches an observer, however, its trajectory may introduce bias into tau-like parameters that render these computations unacceptable as the sole source of information for actions. Here we show that observer knowledge of object size influences their action timing, and known size combined with image expansion simplifies the computations required to make interceptive actions and provides a route for experience to influence interceptive action.

Short-term treatment effects produced by the herbst appliance in the mixed dentition

This prospective clinical investigation evaluates the dentoalveolar and skeletal cephalometric changes produced by the Herbst appliance during treatment of mixed dentition patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion. Thirty individuals (15 male and 15 female individuals; initial mean age nine years 10 months) were treated with the Herbst appliance for a period of 12 months. For comparison, the records of 30 untreated Class II children (15 boys, 15 girls; initial mean age nine years eight months) were followed without treatment for a period of 12 months. The results indicated that the treatment effects produced in the mixed dentition patients were primarily dentoalveolar in nature. The mandibular incisors were tipped labially, and the maxillary incisors were retruded; a significant increase in mandibular posterior dentoalveolar height occurred, and there was a restriction in the vertical development of the maxillary molars. There was no difference in the forward growth of the maxilla between the two groups. In comparison with the controls, however, the Herbst treatment produced a modest but statistically significant increase in total mandibular length. This increase in total mandibular length, however, was less than that observed in adolescent Herbst patients in other studies. © 2005 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.

Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontics brackets on composite resin restorations with different surface treatments

INTRODUÇÃO: frequentemente, os pacientes ortodônticos apresentam restaurações de resina composta; no entanto, existem poucos estudos que avaliam a melhor forma de colagem ortodôntica nessa situação. OBJETIVO: o objetivo do presente trabalho foi avaliar a força adesiva de braquetes ortodônticos em restaurações resinosas com tratamento de superfície. MÉTODOS: foram utilizados 51 incisivos inferiores bovinos divididos aleatoriamente em três grupos. No grupo controle (GC), os braquetes foram colados em esmalte dentário; nos grupos experimentais com tratamento (GCT) e sem tratamento (GST), os braquetes foram colados em restauração de resina previamente realizada, diferenciando-se pelo tratamento de superfície com broca diamantada. Os dentes foram incluídos em tubos de PVC com resina acrílica autopolimerizável. O ensaio de cisalhamento foi executado em máquina universal de ensaios Emic. Os grupos foram submetidos à ANOVA com pós-teste de Tukey para verificação da diferença estatística entre os grupos (α = 0,05). RESULTADOS: GC (6,62MPa) e GCT (6,82MPa) apresentaram resultados semelhantes, enquanto o GST (5,07MPa) obteve resultados estatisticamente menores (p < 0,05). CONCLUSÃO: conclui-se que a melhor técnica de colagem de braquetes ortodônticos em restaurações de resina composta é a de realização de desgaste sobre a superfície.

Tratamento da má oclusão de classe II, divisão 1, na dentadura mista com apareljo extrabucal removivel

Extraoral appliances represent an alternative for correction of Class II malocclusions. The application of external force leads to tooth movement and influence the growth of the maxillomandibular complex. This article aims to present the removable headgear as an adjuvant in the treatment of Class II division 1 in the mixed dentition.

Scientific use of the finite element method in Orthodontics

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Rehabilitative treatment of cleft lip and palate: experience of the Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies - USP (HRAC-USP) - Part 2: Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics

The aim of this article is to present the pediatric dentistry and orthodontic treatment protocol of rehabilitation of cleft lip and palate patients performed at the Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies - University of So Paulo (HRAC-USP). Pediatric dentistry provides oral health information and should be able to follow the child with cleft lip and palate since the first months of life until establishment of the mixed dentition, craniofacial growth and dentition development. Orthodontic intervention starts in the mixed dentition, at 8-9 years of age, for preparing the maxillary arch for secondary bone graft procedure (SBGP). At this stage, rapid maxillary expansion is performed and a fixed palatal retainer is delivered before SBGP. When the permanent dentition is completed, comprehensive orthodontic treatment is initiated aiming tooth alignment and space closure. Maxillary permanent canines are commonly moved mesially in order to substitute absent maxillary lateral incisors. Patients with complete cleft lip and palate and poor midface growth will require orthognatic surgery for reaching adequate anteroposterior interarch relationship and good facial esthetics.

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.

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).

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics.

OBJECTIVES Accurate trial reporting facilitates evaluation and better use of study results. The objective of this article is to investigate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in leading orthodontic journals, and to explore potential predictors of improved reporting. METHODS The 50 most recent issues of 4 leading orthodontic journals until November 2013 were electronically searched. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using the modified CONSORT statement checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the modified CONSORT score was assessed using linear regression modeling. RESULTS 128 RCTs were identified with a mean modified CONSORT score of 68.97% (SD = 11.09). The Journal of Orthodontics (JO) ranked first in terms of completeness of reporting (modified CONSORT score 76.21%, SD = 10.1), followed by American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO) (73.05%, SD = 10.1). Journal of publication (AJODO: β = 10.08, 95% CI: 5.78, 14.38; JO: β = 16.82, 95% CI: 11.70, 21.94; EJO: β = 7.21, 95% CI: 2.69, 11.72 compared to Angle), year of publication (β = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.28, 1.67 for each additional year), region of authorship (Europe: β = 5.19, 95% CI: 1.30, 9.09 compared to Asia/other), statistical significance (significant: β = 3.10, 95% CI: 0.11, 6.10 compared to non-significant) and methodologist involvement (involvement: β = 5.60, 95% CI: 1.66, 9.54 compared to non-involvement) were all significant predictors of improved modified CONSORT scores in the multivariable model. Additionally, median overall Jadad score was 2 (IQR = 2) across journals, with JO (median = 3, IQR = 1) and AJODO (median = 3, IQR = 2) presenting the highest score values. CONCLUSION The reporting quality of RCTs published in leading orthodontic journals is considered suboptimal in various CONSORT areas. This may have a bearing in trial result interpretation and use in clinical decision making and evidence- based orthodontic treatment interventions.

Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics

INTRODUCTION As the importance of systematic review (SR) conclusions relies upon the scientific rigor of methods and the currency of evidence, we aimed to investigate the currency of orthodontic SRs using as proxy the time from the initial search to publication. Additionally, SR information regarding reporting guidelines, registration, and literature searches were recorded when available. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic PubMed search was carried out using the Clinical Queries page to identify orthodontic SRs cited between 1 January 2008 and 7 November 2013. Data related to reporting guidelines, review registration, dates of review processing, literature search, and abstract reporting were retrieved and classified by journal type. Survival analysis was used to assess the time to reach predefined manuscript stages for orthodontic and non-orthodontic journals. RESULTS One hundred twenty seven of the originally identified 585 SRs were considered eligible. The median interval from search until publication was 13.2 months (interquartile range: IQR = 9.7 months) irrespective of the journal type. There was evidence (P = 0.05) that SRs published by non-orthodontic journals appeared in PubMed faster than in orthodontic journals (non-orthodontic: median = 6.5 months; IQR = 5.7 months; orthodontic: median = 10.2 months; IQR = 5.6 months) from submission to publication and from acceptance to publication (non-orthodontic: median = 1.5 months; IQR = 2.4 months; orthodontic: median = 6.0 months; IQR = 6.2 months; P < 0.001). More than half of these SRs did not cite adherence to any reporting guidelines, whereas all but five studies were not prospectively registered. Search of unpublished research was undertaken in approximately 21 per cent and 29 per cent of the SRs published in non-orthodontic and orthodontic periodicals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that SR users should be aware that median time for orthodontic SRs from search to publication is 13.2 months. SRs published in non-orthodontic journals are likely to be more current in terms of submission until time to publication and acceptance until time to publication compared with those published in orthodontic journals.