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 Unpublished literature was searched on ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, Pro-Quest Dissertation Abstracts, and Thesis database.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.

Maxillary sinus floor extension and posterior tooth inclination in adolescent patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with maxillary first molar extractions

INTRODUCTION Our objective was to investigate potential associations between maxillary sinus floor extension and inclination of maxillary second premolars and second molars in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion whose orthodontic treatment included maxillary first molar extractions. METHODS The records of 37 patients (18 boys, 19 girls; mean age, 13.2 years; SD, 1.62 years) treated between 1998 and 2004 by 1 orthodontist with full Begg appliances were used in this study. Inclusion criteria were white patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, sagittal overjet of ≥4 mm, treatment plan including extraction of the maxillary first permanent molars, no missing teeth, and no agenesis. Maxillary posterior tooth inclination and lower maxillary sinus area in relation to the palatal plane were measured on lateral cephalograms at 3 time points: at the start and end of treatment, and on average 2.5 years posttreatment. Data were analyzed for the second premolar and second molar inclinations by using mixed linear models. RESULTS The analysis showed that the second molar inclination angle decreased by 7° after orthodontic treatment, compared with pretreatment values, and by 11.5° at the latest follow-up, compared with pretreatment. There was evidence that maxillary sinus volume was negatively correlated with second molar inclination angle; the greater the volume, the smaller the inclination angle. For premolars, inclination increased by 15.4° after orthodontic treatment compared with pretreatment, and by 8.1° at the latest follow-up compared with baseline. The volume of the maxillary sinus was not associated with premolar inclination. CONCLUSIONS We found evidence of an association between maxillary second molar inclination and surface area of the lower sinus in patients treated with maxillary first molar extractions. Clinicians who undertake such an extraction scheme in Class II patients should be aware of this potential association and consider appropriate biomechanics to control root uprighting.

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.

Illusions of fusions: assessing cervical vertebral fusion on lateral cephalograms, multidetector computed tomographs, and cone-beam computed tomographs

INTRODUCTION The aims of this study were to compare lateral cephalograms with other radiologic methods for diagnosing suspected fusions of the cervical spine and to validate the assessment of congenital fusions and osteoarthritic changes against the anatomic truth. METHODS Four cadaver heads were selected with fusion of vertebrae C2 and C3 seen on a lateral cephalogram. Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) were performed and assessed by 5 general radiologists and 5 oral radiologists, respectively. Vertebrae C2 and C3 were examined for osseous fusions, and the left and right facet joints were diagnosed for osteoarthritis. Subsequently, the C2 and C3 were macerated and appraised by a pathologist. Descriptive analysis was performed, and interrater agreements between and within the groups were computed. RESULTS All macerated specimens showed osteoarthritic findings of varying degrees, but no congenital bony fusion. All observers agreed that no fusion was found on MDCT or CBCT. They disagreed on the prevalence of osteoarthritic deformities (general radiologists/MDCT, 100%; oral radiologists/CBCT, 93.3%) and joint space assessment in the facet joints (kappa = 0.452). The agreement within the rater groups differed considerably (general radiologists/MDCT, kappa = 0.612; oral radiologists/CBCT, kappa = 0.240). CONCLUSIONS Lateral cephalograms do not provide dependable data to assess the cervical spine for fusions and cause false-positive detections. Both MDCT interpreted by general radiologists and CBCT interpreted by oral radiologists are reliable methods to exclude potential fusions. Degenerative osteoarthritic changes are diagnosed more accurately and consistently by general radiologists evaluating MDCT.

Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

The aims of this study were to assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) using AMSTAR and to compare the prevalence of meta-analysis in both review types. A literature search was undertaken to identify SRs that consisted of hand-searching five major orthodontic journals [American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (February 2002 to July 2011)] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2000 to July 2011. Methodological quality of the included reviews was gauged using the AMSTAR tool involving 11 key methodological criteria with a score of 0 or 1 given for each criterion. A cumulative grade was given for the paper overall (0-11); an overall score of 4 or less represented poor methodological quality, 5-8 was considered fair and 9 or greater was deemed to be good. In total, 109 SRs were identified in the five major journals and on the CDSR. Of these, 26 (23.9%) were in the CDSR. The mean overall AMSTAR score was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria; a similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the CDSR (P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis (β = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTAR.

Reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography compared with digital dental casts.

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to determine the reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on 2 types of dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans: CBCT images, and Anatomodels (InVivoDental, San Jose, Calif); these were compared with digital models generated from dental impressions (Digimodels; Orthoproof, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands). The Digimodels were used as the reference standard. METHODS The 3 types of digital models were made from 10 subjects. Four examiners repeated 37 linear tooth and arch measurements 10 times. Paired t tests and the intraclass correlation coefficient were performed to determine the reproducibility and accuracy of the measurements. RESULTS The CBCT images showed significantly smaller intraclass correlation coefficient values and larger duplicate measurement errors compared with the corresponding values for Digimodels and Anatomodels. The average difference between measurements on CBCT images and Digimodels ranged from -0.4 to 1.65 mm, with limits of agreement values up to 1.3 mm for crown-width measurements. The average difference between Anatomodels and Digimodels ranged from -0.42 to 0.84 mm with limits of agreement values up to 1.65 mm. CONCLUSIONS Statistically significant differences between measurements on Digimodels and Anatomodels, and between Digimodels and CBCT images, were found. Although the mean differences might be clinically acceptable, the random errors were relatively large compared with corresponding measurements reported in the literature for both Anatomodels and CBCT images, and might be clinically important. Therefore, with the CBCT settings used in this study, measurements made directly on CBCT images and Anatomodels are not as accurate as measurements on Digimodels.

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.

Initial orthodontic alignment effectiveness with self-ligating and conventional appliances: a network meta-analysis in practice.

Systematic reviews of well-designed trials constitute a high level of scientific evidence and are important for medical decision making. Meta-analysis facilitates integration of the evidence using a transparent and systematic approach, leading to a broader interpretation of treatment effectiveness and safety than can be attained from individual studies. Traditional meta-analyses are limited to comparing just 2 interventions concurrently and cannot combine evidence concerning multiple treatments. A relatively recent extension of the traditional meta-analytical approach is network meta-analysis, which allows, under certain assumptions, the quantitative synthesis of all evidence under a unified framework and across a network of all eligible trials. Network meta-analysis combines evidence from direct and indirect information via common comparators; interventions can therefore be ranked in terms of the analyzed outcome. In this article, the network meta-analysis approach is introduced in a nontechnical manner using a worked example on the treatment effectiveness of conventional and self-ligating appliances.

The CONSORT Statement: Application within and adaptations for orthodontic trials

High-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are an integral part of evidence-based medicine. RCTs are the bricks and mortar of high-quality systematic reviews, which are important determinants of health care policy and clinical practice. For published research to be used most effectively, investigators and authors should follow the guidelines for accurate and transparent reporting of RCTs. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement and its extensions are among the most widely used reporting guidelines in biomedical research. CONSORT was adopted by the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics in 2004. Since 2011, this Journal has been actively implementing compliance with the CONSORT reporting guidelines. The objective of this explanatory article is to highlight the relevance and implications of the various CONSORT items to help authors to achieve CONSORT compliance in their research submissions of RCTs to this and other orthodontic journals.