British Orthodontic Conference Research Articles

British Orthodontic Conference 2024 - A reimagining

British Orthodontic Conference 2024 - A reimagining

British Orthodontic Conference 2023

British Orthodontic Conference 2023

British Orthodontic Conference 2022

British Orthodontic Conference 2022

British Orthodontic Conference 2021

British Orthodontic Conference 2021

British Orthodontic Conference 2021

Pamela Gill reviews this year's British Orthodontic Conference

Publication rate of abstracts from presentations at the British Orthodontic Conference 2009-2014.

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the publication rate of scientific abstracts presented at the British Orthodontic Conference 2009-2014. Predictors of full-text publications after presentation of abstracts were explored. Cross-sectional study. Details of abstracts were retrieved from the conference programmes. Abstracts were screened and full-text publications identified by a single author with discrepancies discussed. Two electronic databases were searched to identify full-text publication of abstracts presented at the British Orthodontic Conference during 2009-2014. Study characteristics were recorded in a prespecified data collection sheet. Descriptive and correlation statistics were calculated. Multivariable Cox regression modelling was implemented in order to assess the effect of predictors on the instance of probability of publication. A total of 225 abstracts (148 poster presentations and 77 oral presentations) were identified. Observational studies were frequent (60%) and significant results were reported in 38.7% of abstracts. The rate of full-text publication after abstract presentation was 46.2% with a mean time to publication of 18.3 ± 18.7 months. Authors based at both university and hospitals (Hazard ratio: 2.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-5.47, P=0.01) had a higher instant probability of publication compared to university only, whereas diagnostic studies (Hazard ratio: 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.74, P=0.02) had lower instant probability of publication compared to systematic reviews. Over 50% of study abstracts presented at the British Orthodontic Conference during 2009-2014 remain unpublished. Author affiliation and study type appear to influence full text publication. In order to reduce publication bias within the literature, publication of full-text articles by authors of presented abstracts is encouraged.

British Orthodontic Conference 2019

British Orthodontic Conference 2019

CONFERENCE REPORT: British Orthodontic Conference 2018

CONFERENCE REPORT: British Orthodontic Conference 2018

Orthodontic retention to have and to hold.

Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry and The World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform, abstracts from the British Orthodontic Conference, the European Orthodontic Conference and the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) from 2011 to 2015 and the bibliographies of identified studies.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adults who had had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces were considered.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently selected studies, abstracted data and assessed study quality. For continuous data mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with ratios (RR) and 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes.ResultsFifteen studies involving a total of 1722 patients were included. Seven studies were considered to be at high risk of bias, four at low risk and four at unclear risk. For removable retainers versus fixed retainers (three studies) there was low quality evidence that thermoplastic removable retainers provided slightly poorer stability in the lower arch than multistrand fixed retainers: MD (Little's Irregularity Index, 0 mm is stable) 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.17 to 1.03) and of less gingival bleeding with removable retainers: RR 0.53 (95%CI; 0.31 to 0.88). Patients found fixed retainers more acceptable to wear, with a mean difference on a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100; 100 being very satisfied) of -12.84 (95% CI -7.09 to -18.60).For different types of fixed retainers (four studies) data from three studies (228 patients) comparing polyethylene ribbon bonded retainer versus multistrand retainer were pooled showing no evidence of a difference in failure rates. RR = 1.10 (95%CI; 0.77 to 1.57).Pooled data from two trials (174 patients) comparing the same types of upper fixed retainers, showed a similar finding: RR =1.25 (95%CI; 0.87 to 1.78).For different types of removable retainers (eight studies) one study at low risk of bias comparing upper and lower part-time thermoplastic versus full-time thermoplastic retainers showed no evidence of a difference in relapse (graded moderate quality evidence). Another study, comparing part-time and full-time wear of lower Hawley retainers, found no evidence of any difference in relapse (low quality evidence). Two studies at high risk of bias suggested that stability was better in the lower arch for thermoplastic retainers versus Hawley, and for thermoplastic full-time versus Begg (fulltime) (both low quality evidence). In one study, participants wearing Hawley retainers reported more embarrassment more often than participants wearing thermoplastic retainers: RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.49; one trial, 348 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence). They also found Hawley retainers harder to wear. There was conflicting evidence about survival rates of Hawley and thermoplastic retainers.For combination of upper thermoplastic and lower bonded versus upper thermoplastic with lower adjunctive procedures versus positioner (one study) there was no evidence of a difference in relapse between the combination of an upper thermoplastic and lower canine to canine bonded retainer and the combination of an upper thermoplastic retainer and lower interproximal stripping, without a lower retainer. Both these approaches are better than using a positioner as a retainer.ConclusionsWe did not find any evidence that wearing thermoplastic retainers fulltime provides greater stability than wearing them part-time, but this was assessed in only a small number of participants. Overall, there is insufficient high quality evidence to make recommendations on retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Further high quality RCTs are needed.

No reliable evidence to guide initial arch wire choice for fixed appliance therapy

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline and Embase databases were searched. Conference proceedings and abstracts from the British Orthodontic Conference European Orthodontic Conference and the International Association for Dental Research were also searched together with the reference lists of identified studies. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Randomised controlled trials of initial arch wire involving participants with upper and/or lower full arch fixed orthodontic appliances were included. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out independently by at least two reviewers. Nine RCTs with 571 participants were included in this review. All trials were at high risk of bias. All trials had at least one potentially confounding factor (such as bracket type, slot size, ligation method, extraction of teeth) which is likely to have influenced the outcome and was not controlled in the trial. None of the trials reported the important adverse outcome of root resorption. The comparisons were made between:Multistrand stainless steel initial arch wires compared to superelastic nickel titanium (NiTi) initial arch wires. There were four trials in this group, with different comparisons and outcomes reported at different times. No meta-analysis was possible. There is insufficient evidence from these trials to determine whether or not there is a difference in either rate of alignment or pain between stainless steel and NiTi initial arch wires.Conventional (stabilised) NiTi initial arch wires compared to superelastic NiTi initial arch wires. There were two trials in this group, one reporting the outcome of alignment over six months and the other reporting pain over one week. There is insufficient evidence from these trials to determine whether or not there is any difference between conventional (stabilised) and superelastic NiTi initial arch wires with regard to either alignment or pain.Single-strand superelastic NiTi initial arch wires compared to other NiTi (coaxial, copper NiTi (CuNiTi) or thermoelastic) initial arch wires. The three trials in this comparison each compared a different product against single-strand superelastic NiTi. There is very weak unreliable evidence, based on one very small study (n = 24) at high risk of bias, that coaxial superelastic NiTi may produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks, but no information on associated pain or root resorption. This result should be interpreted with caution until further research evidence is available. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference between either thermoelastic or CuNiTi and superelastic NiTi initial arch wires. There is no reliable evidence from the trials included in this review that any specific initial arch wire material is better or worse than another with regard to speed of alignment or pain. There is no evidence at all about the effect of initial arch wire materials on the important adverse effect of root resorption. Further well-designed and conducted, adequately-powered RCTs are required to determine whether the performance of initial arch wire materials as demonstrated in the laboratory, makes a clinically important difference to the alignment of teeth in the initial stage of orthodontic treatment in patients.

Orthodontic nurse day at the national conference

The British Orthodontic Conference 2012, the largest specialist meeting in the UK, included a day of events for orthodontic nurses, covering issues such as smile aesthetics, how cultural factors affect treatment and managing orthodontic pain

Bonded molar tubes associated with higher failure rate than molar bands

The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, and Conference proceedings and abstracts from the British Orthodontic Conference, European Orthodontic Conference and the International Association of Dental Research were searched. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) including those that use a split-mouth design were included. There were no restrictions regarding the language. The selection of papers, decisions about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. Comparisons were to be made firstly between any of the five main types of adhesive. If possible, comparisons were to be made within groups and, where appropriate, between chemical- and light-cured adhesives.Meta-analysis was to be undertaken only on studies of similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures. Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed a statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification, again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events were identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions.

University Teachers Group abstracts 2009

The abstracts submitted for the University Teachers Group Session at the British Orthodontic Conference – September 2009.

The British Orthodontic Conference 2009

This year's British Orthodontic Conference was held in Edinburgh on the 13–15 September. The conference's Nurses Day involved a series of talks on a wide range of topics. Fiona Grist provides the highlights of the talks and the day's other events

Secondary surgery in cleft lip and palate care

Last Autumn Fiona Grist was at the British Orthodontic Conference and attended a lecture on cleft care, by Professor Piet Haers. Although this is a problematic subject to present to an audience wit varying degrees of experience in this field, she found there was something included for everyone.

British Orthodontic Society – Maurice Berman Prize 2007

This paper describes the orthodontic treatment of a multidisciplinary case, which was awarded the Maurice Berman Prize in 2007 at the British Orthodontic Conference, Harrogate.

High attendance, high standards

Members of the dental team, from orthodontist to dental nurse, are increasingly attending conferences and events as a team. In this meeting report, Fiona Grist reviews the recent nurses' day at the British Orthodontic Conference.

Northcroft Memorial Lecture 2007. A century of progress: advances in orthodontics since the foundation of the British Society for the Study of Orthodontics

The British Orthodontic Society invites outstanding contributors from the field of Orthodontics to give the guest lecture in memory of George Northcroft. In 2007 the guest lecturer was Professor Murray C. Meikle. The article that follows was presented as the Northcroft Memorial Lecture 2007 at the British Orthodontic Conference, Harrogate, UK, 24th September 2007.

Brave new world: looking to the future

Continuing professional development, competitions and congratulations. The future certainly looks promising for dental nursing, and orthodontics in particular. Dental Nursing board member Fiona Grist reports on another successful British Orthodontic Conference.

Northcroft Memorial Lecture 2006 The future of specialist training

The British Orthodontic Society invites outstanding contributors from the field of Orthodontics to give the guest lecture in memory of George Northcroft. In 2006 the guest lecturer was Professor Jonathan Sandy. The paper which follows was presented as the Northcroft Memorial Lecture 2006 at the British Orthodontic Conference, Edinburgh.