Impacted maxillary canines and root resorptions of neighbouring teeth: a radiographic analysis using cone-beam computed tomography

The study analyses the location of impacted maxillary canines and factors influencing root resorptions of adjacent teeth using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). In addition, the interrater reliability between observers of two different dental specialties for radiographic parameters will be evaluated. CBCT images of patients who were referred for radiographic localization of impacted maxillary canines and/or suspicion of root resorptions of adjacent teeth were included. The study analysed the exact three-dimensional location of the impacted canines in the anterior maxilla, frequency and extent of root resorptions, and potential influencing factors. To assess interrater agreement, Cohen's correlation parameters were calculated. This study comprises 113 patients with CBCT scans, and 134 impacted canines were analysed retrospectively. In the patients evaluated, 69 impacted canines were located palatally (51.49 per cent), 41 labially (30.60 per cent), and 24 (17.91 per cent) in the middle of the alveolar process. Root resorptions were found in 34 lateral incisors (25.37 per cent), 7 central incisors (5.22 per cent), 6 first premolars (4.48 per cent), and 1 second premolar (0.75 per cent). There was a significant correlation between root resorptions on adjacent teeth and localization of the impacted canine in relation to the bone, as well as vertical localization of the canine. Interrater agreement showed values of 0.546-0.877. CBCT provides accurate information about location of the impacted canine and prevalence and degree of root resorption of neighbouring teeth with high interrater correlation. This information is of great importance for surgeons and orthodontists for accurate diagnostics and interdisciplinary treatment planning.

Torque expression of 0.018 and 0.022 inch conventional brackets

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the moments generated with low- and high-torque brackets. Four different bracket prescription-slot combinations of the same bracket type (Mini Diamond® Twin) were evaluated: high-torque 0.018 and 0.022 inch and low-torque 0.018 and 0.022 inch. These brackets were bonded on identical maxillary acrylic resin models with levelled and aligned teeth and each model was mounted on the orthodontic measurement and simulation system (OMSS). Ten specimens of 0.017 × 0.025 inch and ten 0.019 × 0.025 inch stainless steel archwires (ORMCO) were evaluated in the low- and high-torque 0.018 inch and 0.022 inch brackets, respectively. The wires were ligated with elastomerics into the brackets and each measurement was repeated once after religation. Two-way analysis of variance and t-test were conducted to compare the generated moments between wires at low- and high-torque brackets separately. The maximum moment generated by the 0.017 × 0.025 inch stainless steel archwire in the 0.018 inch brackets at +15 degrees ranged from 14.33 and 12.95 Nmm for the high- and low-torque brackets, respectively. The measured torque in the 0.022 inch brackets with the 0.019 × 0.025 inch stainless steel archwire was 9.32 and 6.48 Nmm, respectively. The recorded differences of maximum moments between the high- and low-torque series were statistically significant. High-torque brackets produced higher moments compared with low-torque brackets. Additionally, in both high- and low-torque configurations, the thicker 0.019 × 0.025 inch steel archwire in the 0.022 inch slot system generated lower moments in comparison with the 0.017 × 0.025 inch steel archwire in the 0.018 inch slot system.

A comparative assessment of torque generated by lingual and conventional brackets

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of bracket type on the labiopalatal moments generated by lingual and conventional brackets. Incognito™ lingual brackets (3M Unitek), STb™ lingual brackets (Light Lingual System; ORMCO), In-Ovation L lingual brackets (DENTSPLY GAC), and conventional 0.018 inch slot brackets (Gemini; 3M Unitek) were bonded on identical maxillary acrylic resin models with levelled and aligned teeth. Each model was mounted on the orthodontic measurement and simulation system and 10 0.0175 × 0.0175 TMA wires were used for each bracket type. The wire was ligated with elastomerics into the Incognito, STb, and conventional brackets and each measurement was repeated once after religation. A 15 degrees buccal root torque (+15 degrees) and then a 15 degrees palatal root torque (-15 degrees) were gradually applied to the right central incisor bracket. After each activation, the bracket returned to its initial position and the moments in the sagittal plane were recorded during these rotations of the bracket. One-way analysis of variance with post hoc multiple comparisons (Tukey test at 0.05 error rate) was conducted to assess the effect on bracket type on the generated moments. The magnitude of maximum moment at +15 degrees ranged 8.8, 8.2, 7.1, and 5.8 Nmm for the Incognito, STb, conventional Gemini, and the In-Ovation L brackets, respectively; similar values were recorded at -15 degrees: 8.6, 8.1, 7.0, and 5.7 Nmm, respectively. The recorded differences of maximum moments were statistically significant, except between the Incognito and STb brackets. Additionally, the torque angles were evaluated at which the crown torque fell well below the minimum levels of 5.0 Nmm, as well as the moment/torque ratio at the last part of the activation/deactivation curve, between 10 and 15 degrees. The lowest torque expression was observed at the self-ligating lingual brackets, followed by the conventional brackets. The Incognito and STb lingual brackets generated the highest moments.

A comparative assessment of forces and moments generated by lingual and conventional brackets

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of bracket type on the labiopalatal forces and moments generated in the sagittal plane. Incognito™ lingual brackets (3M Unitek), STb™ lingual brackets (Light Lingual System; ORMCO), and conventional 0.018 inch slot brackets (Gemini; 3M Unitek) were bonded on three identical maxillary acrylic resin models, with a palatally displaced right lateral incisor. The transfer trays for the indirect bonding of the lingual brackets were constructed in certified laboratories. Each model was mounted on the orthodontic measurement and simulation system and ten 0.013 inch CuNiTi wires were used for each bracket type. The wire was ligated with elastomerics and each measurement was repeated once after re-ligation. The labiopalatal forces and the moments in the sagittal plane were recorded on the right lateral incisor. One-way analysis of variance and post hoc Scheffe pairwise comparisons were used to assess the effect on bracket type on the generated forces and moments. The magnitude of forces ranged from 1.62, 1.27, and 1.81 N for the STb, conventional, and Incognito brackets, respectively; the corresponding moments were 2.01, 1.45, and 2.19 N mm, respectively. Bracket type was a significant predictor of the generated forces (P < 0.001) and moments (P < 0.001). The produced forces were different among all three bracket types, whereas the generated moments differed between conventional and lingual brackets but not between lingual brackets.

Clinical trial design for orthodontists

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.

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.

Bisphenol-A and residual monomer leaching from orthodontic adhesive resins and polycarbonate brackets: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION The objective of this systematic review was to assess the short- and long-term release of components of orthodontic adhesives and polycarbonate brackets in the oral environment. METHODS Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The following electronic databases with no language and publication date restrictions were searched: MEDLINE (via Ovid and PubMed), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, and CENTRAL. Unpublished literature was searched on ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, and Pro-Quest Dissertation Abstracts and Thesis database. The reference lists of all eligible studies were checked for additional studies. Two review authors performed data extraction independently and in duplicate using data collection forms. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or the involvement of an arbiter. RESULTS No randomized controlled trial was identified. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, observational studies were included. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. All were observational studies conducted in vivo or in vitro. The bisphenol-A release from orthodontic bonding resins was found to be between 0.85 and 20.88 ng per milliliter in vivo, and from traces to 65.67 ppm in vitro. Polycarbonate brackets released amounts of 22.24 μg per gram in ethanol solution and 697 μg per gram after 40 months in water. Bis-GMA and TEGDMA leaching in vitro reached levels of 64 and 174 mg per 10 μL, respectively. Because of the heterogeneity in methodologies and reporting, only qualitative synthesis was performed. CONCLUSIONS The available evidence on this topic derived from observational in-vivo and in-vitro studies that represent a moderate level of evidence. The variety of setups and the different units allied to the diversity of reporting among studies did not allow calculation of pooled estimates.