Mini-arthrotomy for lateral discoid menisci in children

BACKGROUND: Long-term results after partial, extended, or complete resection of lateral discoid meniscus in children revealed knee arthritis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the operative approach, arthrotomy or arthroscopy, has an impact on the outcome and the development of arthritis. METHODS: A retrospective comparison of 2 well matching groups totaling 40 children with symptomatic lateral discoid meniscus (48 knees, mean age 8.9 years, 13 male and 27 female patients). Meniscus resection was performed via mini-arthrotomy in group 1 (n=17 patients, 20 knees) and arthroscopically in group 2 (n=23 patients, 28 knees). RESULTS: In the follow-up (mean 57 months in group 1, 62 months in group 2), functional results indicated a trend to better results in the International Knee Documentation Committee score (P=0.12) and in the Lysholm score for group 1 (P=0.13) but not in the Ikeuchi score (P=0.48). The comparison of the radiographic arthritis grading in the follow-up showed no significant arthritis in either group (P=0.22). The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (2/20, 10% in group 1; 3/28, 12% in group 2). CONCLUSIONS: Most likely because of the appropriate visualization of the children's joint and the easier instrumentation, the mini-arthrotomy led to slightly superior results compared with those after arthroscopic resection regarding functional outcome and 5 years after surgery. We can recommend the mini-arthrotomy for the resection of lateral discoid meniscus particularly in young children with narrow joint spaces and for surgeons that are not familiar with arthroscopies of small joints. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III (therapeutic study, case series with control group).

Range of motion after computed tomography-based simulation of intertrochanteric corrective osteotomy in cases of slipped capital femoral epiphysis: comparison of uniplanar flexion osteotomy and multiplanar flexion, valgisation, and rotational osteotomies

BACKGROUND: Various osteotomy techniques have been developed to correct the deformity caused by slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) and compared by their clinical outcomes. The aim of the presented study was to compare an intertrochanteric uniplanar flexion osteotomy with a multiplanar osteotomy by their ability to improve postoperative range of motion as measured by simulation of computed tomographic data in patients with SCFE. METHODS: We examined 19 patients with moderate or severe SCFE as classified based on slippage angle. A computer program for the simulation of movement and osteotomy developed in our laboratory was used for study execution. According to a 3-dimensional reconstruction of the computed tomographic data, the physiological range was determined by flexion, abduction, and internal rotation. The multiplanar osteotomy was compared with the uniplanar flexion osteotomy. Both intertrochanteric osteotomy techniques were simulated, and the improvements of the movement range were assessed and compared. RESULTS: The mean slipping and thus correction angles measured were 25 degrees (range, 8-46 degrees) inferior and 54 degrees (range, 32-78 degrees) posterior. After the simulation of multiplanar osteotomy, the virtually measured ranges of motion as determined by bone-to-bone contact were 61 degrees for flexion, 57 degrees for abduction, and 66 degrees for internal rotation. The simulation of the uniplanar flexion osteotomy achieved a flexion of 63 degrees, an abduction of 36 degrees, and an internal rotation of 54 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from abduction, the improvement in the range of motion by a uniplanar flexion osteotomy is comparable with that of the multiplanar osteotomy. However, the improvement in flexion for the simulation of both techniques is not satisfactory with regard to the requirements of normal everyday life, in contrast to abduction and internal rotation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective comparative study.

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.

Curing lights for orthodontic bonding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION Light cure of resin-based adhesives is the mainstay of orthodontic bonding. In recent years, alternatives to conventional halogen lights offering reduced curing time and the potential for lower attachment failure rates have emerged. The relative merits of curing lights in current use, including halogen-based lamps, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), and plasma arc lights, have not been analyzed systematically. In this study, we reviewed randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials to assess the risks of attachment failure and bonding time in orthodontic patients in whom brackets were cured with halogen lights, LEDs, or plasma arc systems. METHODS Multiple electronic database searches were undertaken, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL. Language restrictions were not applied. Unpublished literature was searched on ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, Pro-Quest Dissertation Abstracts, and Thesis database. Search terms included randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, random allocation, double blind method, single blind method, orthodontics, LED, halogen, bond, and bracket. Authors of primary studies were contacted as required, and reference lists of the included studies were screened. RESULTS Randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials directly comparing conventional halogen lights, LEDs, or plasma arc systems involving patients with full arch, fixed, or bonded orthodontic appliances (not banded) with follow-up periods of a minimum of 6 months were included. Using predefined forms, 2 authors undertook independent extraction of articles; disagreements were resolved by discussion. The assessment of the risk of bias of the randomized controlled trials was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria; 2 were excluded because of high risk of bias. In the comparison of bond failure risk with halogen lights and plasma arc lights, 1851 brackets were included in both groups. Little statistical heterogeneity was observed in this analysis (I(2) = 4.8%; P = 0.379). There was no statistical difference in bond failure risk between the groups (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68-1.23; prediction intervals, 0.54, 1.56). Similarly, no statistical difference in bond failure risk was observed in the meta-analysis comparing halogen lights and LEDs (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.64-1.44; prediction intervals, 0.07, 13.32). The pooled estimates from both comparisons were OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.74-1.17; and prediction intervals, 0.69, 1.17. CONCLUSIONS There is no evidence to support the use of 1 light cure type over another based on risk of attachment failure.