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.

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.