Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children

BackgroundAnterior open bite occurs when there is a lack of vertical overlap of the upper and lower incisors. the aetiology is multifactorial including: oral habits, unfavourable growth patterns, enlarged lymphatic tissue with mouth breathing. Several treatments have been proposed to correct this malocclusion, but interventions are not supported by strong scientific evidence.ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to evaluate orthodontic and orthopaedic treatments to correct anterior open bite in children.Search methodsThe following databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 14 February 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)(The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 14 February 2014); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 14 February 2014); LILACS via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 14 February 2014); BBO via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 14 February 2014); and SciELO (1997 to 14 February 2014). We searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov (to 14 February 2014). Chinese journals were handsearched and the bibliographies of papers were retrieved.Selection criteriaAll randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of orthodontic or orthopaedic treatments or both to correct anterior open bite in children.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of all reports identified.Risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous data. the continuous data were expressed as described by the author.Main resultsThree randomised controlled trials were included comparing: effects of Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training versus no treatment; repelling-magnet splints versus bite-blocks; and palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup versus no treatment.The study comparing repelling-magnet splints versus bite-blocks could not be analysed because the authors interrupted the treatment earlier than planned due to side effects in four of ten patients.FR-4 associated with lip-seal training (RR = 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.38)) and removable palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup (RR = 0.23 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.48)) were able to correct anterior open bite.No study described: randomisation process, sample size calculation, there was not blinding in the cephalometric analysis and the two studies evaluated two interventions at the same time. These results should be therefore viewed with caution.Authors' conclusionsThere is weak evidence that the interventions FR-4 with lip-seal training and palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup are able to correct anterior open bite. Given that the trials included have potential bias, these results must be viewed with caution. Recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made based only on the results of these trials. More randomised controlled trials are needed to elucidate the interventions for treating anterior open bite.

Evaluation of cement stresses in finite element analyses of cemented orthopaedic implants

Stress analysis of the cement fixation of orthopaedic implants to bone is frequently? carried out using finite element analysis. However, the stress distribution in the cement laver is usually intricate, and it is difficult to report it in a way that facilitates comparison of implants for pre-clinical testing. To study this problem, and make recommendations for stress reporting, a finite element analysis of a hip prosthesis implanted into a synthetic composite femur is developed. Three cases are analyzed: a fully bonded implant, a debonded implant, and a debonded implant where the cement is removed distal to the stein tip. In addition to peak stresses, and contour and vector plots, a stressed volume and probability-of-failure analysis is reported. It is predicted that the peak stress is highest for the debonded stem, and that removal of the distal cement more than halves this peak stress. This would suggest that omission of the distal cement is good for polished prostheses (as practiced for the Exeter design). However; if the percentage of cement stressed above a certain threshold (say 3 MPa) is considered, then the removal of distal cement is shown to be disadvantageous because a higher volume of cement is stressed to above the threshold. Vector plots clearly demonstrate the different load transfer for bonded and debonded prostheses: A bonded stein generates maximum tensile stresses in the longitudinal direction, whereas a debonded stem generates most tensile stresses in the hoop direction, except near the tip where tensile longitudinal stresses occur due to subsidence of the stein. Removal of the cement distal to the tip allows greater subsidence but alleviates these large stresses at the tip, albeit at the expense of increased hoop stresses throughout the mantle. It is concluded that a thorough analysis of cemented implants should not report peak stress, which can be misleading, but rather stressed volume, and that vector plots should be reported if a precise analysis of the load transfer mechanism is required.