Orthodontic Conference Research Articles

British Orthodontic Conference 2024 - A reimagining

British Orthodontic Conference 2024 - A reimagining

British Orthodontic Conference 2023

British Orthodontic Conference 2023

A bright dental future

Clementine Rees Brown dives in to the 2022 BOC Orthodontic Conference.

British Orthodontic Conference 2022

British Orthodontic Conference 2022

Gender disparity in speakers of the European Orthodontic Society conferences held between 2015 and 2020: a cross-sectional report.

To assess the representation of female scientists as speakers of blindly selected oral presentations or invited speakers in the latest European Orthodontic Society (EOS) conferences between 2015 and 2020. To examine the association with a number of study- and author-related characteristics. Abstract books and programmes of the EOS conferences held between 2015 and 2020, were electronically searched to identify the gender of all speakers. The following predictor variables were assessed: year, continent of authorship, number of centres, number of authors involved, study design, study topic, and presentation as a WJB Houston Award nominee. A total of 312 oral presentations were recorded with almost even distribution of female/male gender. In the majority of oral presentations, a European-origin speaker affiliation was confirmed (208/312; 66.7%), with a relatively equal representation of women (P = 0.05). Seniority in authorship of oral presentations belonged to male scientists (209/312; 67%). Furthermore, a total of 84 invited speakers were identified, of which only 15 (17.9%) were female, indicating a substantial gender gap. No more than four women were invited to lecture annually, compared to a minimum of 10 male scientists. Overall, a significant difference was recorded for the odds of a female scientist to be invited as a speaker in the EOS conference (range of odds across years: 0.20-0.36), compared to the odds for conducting an oral presentation in the same context and timescale (range of odds across years: 0.75-1.45) (Mantel-Haenszel test for homogeneity, P-value < 0.001). Findings were based solely on the annual orthodontic conference of the EOS, without further insights on national conferences, or identification of wide-range timescale effects. Gender disparity related to invited speakers at the EOS 2015-20 annual conferences was unequivocally confirmed. Nevertheless, gender differences were not identified in oral presentations. Firm efforts to ensure female scientist's voice is equally represented are needed including a move from theory to practice.

Orthodontic conference set for Lisbon

Orthodontic conference set for Lisbon

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

Planning and interpreting the sample size of trials with multiple outcomes.

An orthodontist participates in an international orthodontic conference and hears from the company representatives of a new experimental custom-made appliance for fixed appliance treatment. According to its manufacturer, using this experimental appliance would bring multiple benefits including less discomfort, better oral hygiene, and reduced treatment duration compared to conventional appliances.

CONFERENCE REPORT: British Orthodontic Conference 2018

CONFERENCE REPORT: British Orthodontic Conference 2018

Memorial Pictures from 4th National Orthodontic Conference February 2014 Organized by Bangladesh Orthodontic Soceity

Abstract not availableBan J Orthod &amp; Dentofac Orthop, April 2015; Vol-5 (1-2), P.40-41

3rd International Orthodontic Conference of ODOAN (Nepal), Nepal Tourism Board, Kathmandu, Sept. 21-22, 2013

Abstract not availableBan J Orthod &amp; Dentofac Orthop, April 2015; Vol-5 (1-2), P.37-39

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.

Orthodontics in SAARC Countries: Emerging the Force within

No abstract available.

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.

1st International &amp; 2nd National Orthodontic Conference of Bangladesh Orthodontic Society (BOS) - Brief Report

Abstract not found DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjodfo.v2i2.16167 Ban J Orthod &amp; Dentofac Orthop, April 2012; Vol-2, No.2, 48-54

1st International and 2nd National Orthodontic Conference of BOS, Dhaka, Bangladesh, December 27-28, 2012

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjodfo.v2i1.16005Ban J Orthod &amp; Dentofac Orthop, October 2011; Vol-2, No.1, 49-50

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