Type Of Orthodontic Appliance Research Articles

Prognostic risk factors for apical root resorption in orthodontic patients – Are the Kjær’s morphologic characteristics of clinical relevance?

BackgroundPatients undergoing orthodontic treatment (OT) face an increased risk of developing external apical root resorption (EARR). A prognostic risk assessment prior to OT can potentially be conducted through anatomical features in panoramic radiography. This retrospective study aimed to assess the significance of Kjær's morphological characteristics in analyzing the risk of EARR. MethodsPanoramic radiographs of 1,156 patients (624 females, 532 males) were retrospectively analyzed. Anamnestic and treatment-related data were extracted from patient records. The mean age at the start of OT was 12.8 ± 2.2 years (min. 6.4 years, max. 22.3 years) and at the end of OT 15.9 years (min. 8.5 years, max. 24.1 years). The mean treatment duration was 3.1 ± 1.6 years. Panoramic radiographs with a minimum of two per patient were examined for the presence of Kjær’s characteristics. The degree of EARR was registered defining resorption in four degrees of severity. Bivariate analysis and multivariate Poisson regression were performed to assess the association between Kjær’s characteristics and EARR patient- and tooth- related (α = 0.05). ResultsIn total, 72.8% of the patients showed EARR at the end of OT with lateral maxillary incisors most frequently affected. Short roots (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with EARR in patients. Tooth-related microdontia (#12, #22, lower second premolars), narrow crowns (#11, #21, lower incisors), short roots (upper incisors, lower first molars) and ectopia (#11, #21, #13), such as shorter distal roots of the mandibular first molar showed a significant association with EARR depending on severity degree. The type of orthodontic appliance (fixed: p < 0.001, fixed and removeable: p = 0.008), as well as treatment duration (p < 0.001) were also identified as risk factors for EARR. ConclusionsAlthough the risk assessment for EARR development through panoramic radiography analysis is limited, predisposition appears to be present in specific dental characteristics and treatment-related factors.

Comparative analysis of periodontal pain and quality of life in patients with fixed multibracket appliances and aligners (Invisalign®): longitudinal clinical study

BackgroundsThe aim of this longitudinal clinical study is to analyse and compare according to location, degree and type, the pain presented by patients during their first year of treatment, as well as the quality of oral life after the placement of two types of orthodontic appliances: conventional brackets and removable Invisalign ® aligners.MethodsThe sample consisted of 140 patients grouped into 2 study groups of 70 patients each. The first group (brackets group- BG), with fixed multibracket appliances, using the MBT technique and a 0.022” slot. The second group (invisaling group- IG), in treatment with removable aligners (IG), using the Invisalign ® system. They were providen with a questionnare where they had to record the degree (mild, moderate or intense), the type and location of the pain monthly during the first year of treatment. The second form was the Spanish version of the OHIP-14, oral quality of life questionnaire, which was provided the twelfth month after the start of treatment.ResultsIn both groups, we found that the most frequent location of pain occurred during the first phase: mandibular for the IG group and maxillary in the BG group. Throughout the whole analysis, the intensity was mild-moderate with lower values in the conventional brackets’ group. The BG group reported acute pain while the IG group reported sensitive pain during the first month; later both reported sensitive pain.ConclusionsThere are differences in terms of periodontal pain in its degree, location, and type according to the different orthodontic techniques used.Trial registrationThe study was approved by the bioethics committee of the University of Salamanca (USAL_20/516).

Antimicrobial activity of probiotic Streptococcus salivarius LAB813 on in vitro cariogenic biofilms

ObjectiveTo investigate the antimicrobial activity of a novel commensal strain of Streptococcus salivarius, LAB813, against Streptococcus mutans biofilms. MethodsThe inhibitory activity of LAB813 towards S. mutans was tested using mono-, dual-, and multi-species cariogenic biofilms formed on three types of orthodontic appliances (metal, ceramic, aligner). The activity of the commercially available probiotic, BLIS M18™ was used as control. ResultsLAB813 significantly inhibited S. mutans biofilms with cell killing approximating 99% for all materials. LAB813 showed effectiveness at inhibiting S. mutans in more complex multi-species biofilms with cell killing approximating 90% for all three materials. When comparing the killing kinetics of the probiotics, LAB813 had a faster rate of killing biofilms than M18. Experiments conducted with cell-free culture supernatant confirmed the presence of an inhibitory substance of proteinaceous nature. The addition of xylitol, a common sugar substitute used for human consumption, potentiated the inhibitory effects of LAB813 against S. mutans embedded in a more complex fungal-bacterial biofilm. ConclusionsLAB813 possesses strong antimicrobial activity, potent anti-biofilm properties, and enhanced antimicrobial activity in the presence of xylitol. The identification and characterization of strain LAB813 exhibiting antimicrobial activity towards S. mutans hold exciting promise for this novel strain to be developed as an oral probiotic for use in the prevention of dental caries.

Possibilities of periodontal condition control during orthodontic planning and movement of teeth

Relevance. Modern literature reports various side effects and functional and anatomical disorders in periodontal tissues, up to pathologic tooth migration in 32-50% of cases associated with orthodontic tooth movement. The development of new diagnosis capabilities for periodontal tissue condition monitoring and types of orthodontic appliances in the appearance and progression of the pathology of tooth-supporting apparatus is currently relevant. Purpose. To increase the objectivity and periodontium condition control degree during the planning and orthodontic tooth movement. Material and methods. A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted, which, based on inclusion and non-inclusion criteria, included 60 patients aged 25-35 years and allocated them to groups with healthy (2) and damaged (1) periodontium for orthodontic treatment of malocclusion. Orthodontic appliances for the comparison groups were identical (aligners, buccal and lingual passive self-ligating brackets). Prior to the orthodontic treatment, we determined the alveolar bone thickness by the patients’ CTs superimposed on the program for digital modelling of the result; and estimated the optical bone density in Hounsfield units (HU). Clinical parameters for periodontium condition assessment – the simplified oral hygiene index (OHI-S), the Russel and CPITN periodontal indices, and gingival recession level – were determined before the treatment, after the active periodontal treatment, including resection surgery (in group 1), and after the orthodontic treatment in the c omparison groups. Results . After the orthodontic treatment, group 1 patients experienced fewer periodontal complications – 42%, versus 54% in group 2, with initially healthy periodontium with a thin alveolar bone; 18% and 23% - with a thick alveolar bone. The aligner subgroup demonstrated the best results – 16% and 18% for groups 1 and 2, respectively; the worst result was in the lingual brackets subgroup – 50% and 55%, respectively. Gingival recession was the most common periodontal complication. The method of patient CT scan evaluation by superimposition on the digital modelling of the final result allo wed the achievement of orthodontic treatment success. Conclusion . The increase in the objectivity of examination and orthodontic treatment planning, and the ability to control the alveolar bone condition, allows moving the teeth to the desired position with a minimum of side effects and complications.

Orthodontic root resorption

External apical root resorption (EARR) is one of the most frequently reported iatrogenic side effects of orthodontic movement. Nevertheless, no robust and unequivocal scientific evidence is yet available in the literature regarding the clinical and biological factors that trigger EARR. The purpose of the present position paper is to provide clinicians, residents, and investigators a summary of our current understanding about root resorption caused by orthodontic tooth movement, based on up-to-date available scientific evidence.Morphological, structural, biomechanical, and biological differences account for predisposing the apical third to EARR compared to other root surfaces during orthodontic treatment. In addition, a relevant number of patient and treatment-related factors increase risk of EARR. The main patient-related factors are reviewed and discussed: genetic factors, tooth anatomy, demographic factors, malocclusion factors, previous endodontic treatment, medical history, short root anomaly. Similarly, the influence of treatment-related factors are analyzed with regard to the effect of: biomechanical factors, type of orthodontic appliance, adjunctive therapies to accelerate tooth movement, early treatment, maxillary expansion, teeth extractions, the duration of treatment and the amount of apical displacement. Clinical management of EARR from pre-treatment records to the monitoring strategy as well as recommendations for the post orthodontic-treatment period are presented as a guide for the clinician.Despite years of studies, we still do not fully understand EARR, but the future is promising. True three-dimensional imaging with higher resolution and low radiation, and predictive tools towards an earlier detection without radiographs, will mark future developments in the field of EARR in orthodontics.

The Impact of Different Types of Orthodontic Appliances and Its Location in Producing CT Scan Artefacts

Fixed orthodontic appliances can produce metal artefacts in CT images which may degrade the diagnostic image quality. The study aimed to evaluate the artefacts based on the types and location of the metallic and non-metallic orthodontic brackets. This is an in-vitro cross-sectional study. Four different types of orthodontic brackets (stainless steel, titanium, monocrystalline, and polycrystalline ceramic bracket) were bonded consecutively in four different locations of the cadaveric skull. All scans were performed by a single operator using the same CT machine followed by a standard scanning protocol. Artefact intensity for all data sets was quantified by calculating the standard deviation (SD) of the grey values within the dataset by following a standard method. The One-way ANOVA Bonferroni test was used for the data analysis. The mean artefact score of the stainless steel bracket was significantly (p &lt; 0.001) high in comparison with other types of the orthodontic brackets. Besides, the mean artefact score was significantly (p=0.002) low when orthodontic brackets were placed unilaterally. Stainless steel brackets produced a significant amount of noise in CT images which can degrade the diagnostic image quality. Thus, the polycrystalline ceramic bracket can be a better alternative of stainless steel brackets for patient need frequent CT scan.

The Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Interest in Orthodontic Treatment and Perspectives for the Future. Real-Time Surveillance Using Google Trends.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic outbreak may have a large impact on orthodontic treatment. Regular orthodontic visits were strongly and widely interrupted by the unprecedented epidemiological threat. Methods: The data regarding orthodontic queries were investigated in a real-time surveillance using Google Trends. Search terms “braces”, “invisalign”, “get braces”, “get braces off”, “braces pain” and the phrase “social distancing” were analyzed regarding the year preceding the pandemic outbreak and the time of the pandemic. Moreover, the five-year trend for queries “braces” vs. “invisalign”, as an example of different types of orthodontic appliances, was compared. Results: There was a significant decrease in orthodontics phrase queries in the spring of 2020, connected with the worldwide restrictions and lockdowns announced all over the world. There was a lower interest in the “braces pain” query during the first lockdown in 2020. The number of searches for “invisalign” increased steadily over time, while the number of searches for “braces” was relatively stable across the investigated time period. Conclusions: The course of the COVID-19 pandemic has had a large impact on the orthodontic-related search queries. Orthodontists must be better-prepared for any sudden changes in the possible future in the epidemiological situation that may change accessibility to dental offices.

Eliciting Preferences for Adult Orthodontic Treatment: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

There has been little research to explore how adults financially value private orthodontic treatment and whether they have preferences for different attributes of treatment. This study used a discrete choice experiment and aimed to determine whether the recognized skill level of the dental professional and the type of orthodontic appliance influence the values that the public places on private adult orthodontic treatment. In total, 206 adult patients or the parents/guardians of children attending general dental practices in the northeast of England were recruited to complete a discrete choice experiment. Three attributes were included: the type of dental professional providing treatment, the type of orthodontic appliance, and cost. Also collected were demographic and orthodontic history characteristics. Results were analyzed with conditional logistic regression and elicited marginal willingness to pay (MWTP). Participants value the training and expertise of the dental professional providing private orthodontic treatment greater than the type of orthodontic appliance. MWTP for orthodontic treatment increased in conjunction with the recognized skill level of the dental professional. Participants were willing to pay more for aesthetic appliances over a fixed metal appliance. Participants value the training and expertise of the dental professional providing private adult orthodontic treatment greater than the type of orthodontic appliance. These preferences concur with other discrete choice experiments undertaken in medical specialties that included attributes focusing on the qualification, skill, or expertise of the health care professional. MWTP for orthodontic treatment increased in conjunction with the recognized skill level of the dental professional. Participants were willing to pay more for aesthetic appliances than metal fixed appliances. The cost of orthodontics is significant, and adults appreciate the importance of having options and making choices.Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study suggest that patients are willing to pay more for orthodontic services provided by clinicians with higher levels of formal training. In a competitive market where the public appears to prefer the provider over treatment modality, there is an incentive for clinicians to optimize their knowledge and skills to deliver the high-quality orthodontic treatment that patients are demanding. Orthodontic clinicians should be mindful of the demand for the different adult orthodontic appliances and tailor their skill sets accordingly.

Comparative Analysis of Periodontal Pain According to the Type of Precision Orthodontic Appliances: Vestibular, Lingual and Aligners. A Prospective Clinical Study.

Simple SummaryCurrently, there are new trends in orthodontics that are increasingly being used in clinical practice, such as aligners. It is important to know the influence of pain perception in orthodontic patients in order to be able to apply less painful and more comfortable techniques for patients. The advancement of different fixed and removable appliances, using precision digital fabrication methods, is increasingly harnessed in the daily life of our society. Negative experiences such as periodontal pain can cause the rejection of orthodontic treatment. Therefore, the study of the location, intensity and type of pain according to the different techniques is beneficial for improving the quality and success of orthodontic treatment. The objective of this prospective clinical study was to analyze the pain (intensity, location and type) that patients presented after the placement of different types of orthodontic appliances: conventional, low friction, lingual and aligners. The sample consisted of 120 patients divided into four groups: conventional (CON), low friction (LF), lingual (LO) and aligners (INV). The participants were given the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (Ortho-SF-MPQ), where they had to record the pain intensity (no pain, mild, moderate or intense) and the periodontal location at different time points, from the first 4 h to 7 days after the start of treatment. In all the study groups, the most frequent location was both anterior arches, with maximum values between 56.7% (CON group at 24 h) and 30% (LO group at 4 h). The “whole mouth” and “complete lower arch” locations were indicated only by the patients in the lingual group. Regarding pain intensity, the patients reported a higher percentage of mild–moderate pain during the first 3 days of treatment (96.7% in LO at 4 h, 86.7% in CON, 83.3% in LF and 90% in INV at 24 h); later, the reported pain decreased to no pain/mild pain, especially in the lingual group, until reaching values close to zero at 7 days post-treatment. The most frequent type of pain was acute in the low friction and lingual groups (with maxima of 60% and 46.7% at 24 h, respectively). On the contrary, in the conventional (36.7% at 4 h) and Invisalign (40% at 24 h) groups, the sensitive type was the most frequent. There are differences regarding periodontal pain in its intensity, location and type according to the use of different orthodontic techniques.

Reasons influencing the preferences of prospective patients and orthodontists for different orthodontic appliances.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the reasons influencing the preferences for a certain type of orthodontic appliance over another among prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists.MethodsA total of 49 PP and 51 orthodontists were asked about their preferences for the following appliances clear aligners (CA), lingual metallic brackets (LMB), polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, and buccal metallic brackets (BMB). The participants rated the importance of 17 potential reasons that would explain their choices. The reasons that contributed most to these preferences were identified. Non-parametric tests (Fisher’s exact, χ2 and Mann–Whitney tests) and multivariate analyses (regression and discriminant analysis) were used to assess the data (α = 0.05).ResultsCA and BMB were the most chosen appliances by PP and orthodontists, respectively. LMB was the most rejected option among both groups of participants (p < 0.001). Rates of the importance of pain/discomfort, smile esthetics, finishing details, and feeding/speech impairment showed the highest differences between PP and orthodontists (p < 0.0005). Discriminant analyses showed that individuals who considered treatment time and smile esthetics as more important were more likely to prefer CA, while those who prioritized finishing details and cost were more likely to choose BMB (p < 0.05).ConclusionsReasons related to comfort and quality of life during use were considered as more important by PP, while those related to the results and clinical performance of the appliances were considered as more relevant by orthodontists.

Técnica híbrida para tratamento de Classe I com apinhamento – relato de caso

The search for aesthetics has been increasing, some years ago orthodontic treatment was difficult to accept due to the presence of brackets on the buccal surface of the teeth. It is possible to use many tools and ways to treat each case individually today, performing an inconspicuous, safe, comfortable orthodontic treatment and in a shorter time. The present work describes a hybrid technique, in which two types of orthodontic appliances were used in the same case, 3D-BOT and aligners, in which the patient had aesthetic complaints and presented superior and inferior crowding. The case has been started with the 3D-BOT and after 13 consultations the treatment was completed with aligners from the company MYALIGNER, using 4 upper and lower plates. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of hybrid orthodontics, providing comfort, aesthetics and optimizing treatment time.

Orthodontic Emergencies and Perspectives During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Italian Experience

Objective: To investigate the types of dental emergencies that occurred during the lockdown period in Italy (12th March-4th May) and to investigate future therapeutic preferences related to the use of different types of appliances. Material and Methods: A questionnaire dedicated to assessing dental emergencies during the lockdown period and surveying the resumption of orthodontic practice was submitted to clinicians in digital form. The first part of the questionnaire, focused on the orthodontic emergencies that were encountered in relation to the different types of orthodontic appliances and how these were resolved. The second part of the questionnaire was devoted to the resumption of clinical practice; in particular, it was designed to assess whether and what percentage of clinicians are willing to change the duration of appointments in relation to the different types of appliance used, asking them whether their approach to orthodontic treatment would change in the coming months as compared to the pre-COVID-19 era. Results: Results show that in most cases (82%), the percentage of patients who experienced a dental emergency was less than 5% and that far fewer emergencies were attributable to removable (5.7%) than to fixed appliances (94.3%). Looking ahead, clinicians expressed a greater preference for using removable (60.8%) rather than fixed appliances (39.2%). Conclusion: During the lockdown, there relatively few orthodontic emergencies, many of which were handled by telephone consultation. However, a far lower percentage of emergencies were generated by removable (e.g., clear aligners) as opposed to fixed appliances (e.g., multibracket equipment), likely influencing the decision of the majority of clinicians to opt for removable appliances in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparative analysis of growth factors and chemokine secretions between conventional lingual and labial fixed orthodontic appliances

Orthodontic appliances elicit the secretions of some cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors which further have some significances in the remodeling of periodontium tissues. The significant differential forces applied on the periodontium by different types of orthodontic appliances. The secretion of these factors is indirectly responsible for the proper resorption of bones of the periodontal region through molecular signaling, which further supports to facilitate organized movement of the teeth. Objective: In the present study, we carried out the assessment and comparative analysis of the growth factors and chemokines present in the saliva samples of the human subjects of orthodontic treatment with two different treatment modalities: conventional lingual and labial fixed orthodontic appliances. Total 40 saliva samples were collected of which 20 subjects were treated with the conventional lingual appliances and 20 subjects with the labial fixed appliances. All the salivary samples were acquired from the subjects after 21 days treatment. Cytometric bead array was performed to assess the growth factors and chemokines in the saliva on the flow cytometer. No significant differences were seen in the growth factor secretion in the saliva of both types of subjects. The same trend was observed for the chemokine secretion in the saliva except CXCL8, CCL11, CCL2, CCL5, and CXCL9. The similarity in chemokine and growth factor profile between labial and lingual fixed orthodontic appliances indicates that their molecular mechanisms and overall effect on the periodontium are analogous.

Is wearing orthodontic appliances associated with eating difficulties and sugar intake among British adolescents? A cross-sectional study.

To determine whether wearing orthodontic appliances was associated with eating difficulty and lower sugars intake among British adolescents. This study analysed data from 4116 12- and 15-year-olds who participated in the 2013 Children's Dental Health Survey in the UK. Information on eating difficulties in the past 3 months and usual intake of six sugary items was collected through self-administered questionnaires. The presence and type of orthodontic appliances (fixed or removable) were assessed during clinical examinations. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between wearing orthodontic appliances and eating difficulty whereas linear regression was used to evaluate the association between wearing orthodontic appliances and sugars intake. Regression models were adjusted for socio-demographic, behavioural, and clinical characteristics of adolescents. 12.9 per cent of the 4116 adolescents wore orthodontic appliances (10.1 per cent fixed and 2.8 per cent removable), 21.0 per cent reported eating difficulties and the mean daily intake of sugars was 5.3 times/day (SD: 3.7, range: 0-20). Adolescents with fixed appliances had 4.02 (95% CI: 3.03, 5.33) greater odds of reporting eating difficulty than those with no appliances, but no differences were found between adolescents wearing removable and no appliances. No association was found between wearing orthodontic appliances and daily sugars intake either [coefficients of 0.20 (95% CI: -0.27, 0.66) and -0.30 (95% CI: -0.96 to 0.36) for adolescents wearing fixed and removable appliances, respectively]. Wearing fixed orthodontic appliances were associated with greater odds of reporting eating difficulty, but not with lower sugars intake among British adolescents.

Mental distress in orthodontic patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

IntroductionThe ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak impacts the mental health of patients, health workers, and the public. The level of impact on the mental health of orthodontic patients in treatment is unknown. The objective of the study was to evaluate the mental health of orthodontic patients in China during the early stage of the pandemic.MethodsAn online survey was conducted on a convenience sample of anonymous participants. The questionnaire, in Chinese (Mandarin), comprised 5 sections. Sections 1-3 included demographic, epidemical, and orthodontic status of the patients. Section 4 assessed mental health-related to orthodontics. Section 5 was the Kessler-10 Mental Distress Scale. A total of 48 orthodontists were invited to distribute the questionnaires to their patients. Descriptive statistics, principal component analysis, K-means cluster analysis, and bivariate logistics regression analysis were performed with significance set at P <0.05.ResultsQuestionnaires were collected from 558 patients (104 males, 354 females; mean age 24.78 ± 6.33 years). The prevalence of mental distress was 38% (174/458). Higher odds ratios were associated with female participants, missed appointments, and Hubei residence. The type of orthodontic appliance was associated with the anxiety of prolonged treatment duration. The manner of communication with patients regarding the postponement of appointments was associated with patients' concerns of prolonged treatment duration. The frequency of contact from dentists was associated with patients' independence.ConclusionsOver one-third of orthodontic patients experienced mental distress during the pandemic. Multiple factors affected the level of anxiety of orthodontic patients, such as the type of orthodontic appliance, time since last dental visit, manner of communication with the orthodontist, and the localities of the pandemic progression.

Pain and Oral-Health-Related Quality of Life in Orthodontic Patients During Initial Therapy with Conventional, Low-Friction, and Lingual Brackets and Aligners (Invisalign): A Prospective Clinical Study.

The aim of this study was to compare pain and its relationship with the oral quality of life of patients with different types of orthodontic appliances: conventional and conventional low-friction brackets, lingual brackets, and aligners. A prospective clinical study was carried out with a sample size of 120 patients (54 men, 66 women) divided into 4 groups of 30 patients each. The modified McGill questionnaire was used to measure pain at 4, 8, and 24 h and 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 days after the start of treatment, and the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire was used to measure the oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in the first month of treatment. The maximum peak of pain was obtained between 24 and 48 h of treatment. It was found that patients in the lingual orthodontic group described lower levels of pain at all times analyzed, and their scores in the total OHIP-14 indicated less impact on their oral quality of life (1.3 ± 1.2, p < 0.01) compared with the other groups analyzed. There was little difference with the aligners group (Invisalign) (1.7 ± 1.9, p < 0.01). The technique used influences the pain and quality of life of patients at the start of orthodontic treatment.

Salivary levels of Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacilli and other salivary indices in patients wearing clear aligners versus fixed orthodontic appliances: An observational study

This study aimed to investigate salivary levels of Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacilli, and other salivary indices in subjects wearing clear aligners (CA) in comparison with multibrackets orthodontic appliances (MB). A sample of 80 participants (46 males and 34 females) was included in the study: 40 subjects (aged 20.4±1.7 years) were treated with CA, and 40 (aged 21.3±1.7 years) were treated with MB. Plaque index (PI), salivary flow, buffering power of saliva, and salivary levels of S. mutans and Lactobacilli were evaluated prior to start of orthodontic treatment (t0), after 3 months (t1) and 6 months (t2). CA patients maintained PI at level 0 over time, while MB participants experienced a statistically significant increasing trend of PI over time. In addition, at t2, 37.5% of MB participants (15 subjects over 40) showed risky salivary levels (CFU/ml>105) of S. mutans (odds ratio = 7.40; 95% C.I. = 1.94-28.25; chi-square = 10.32; p = 0.001) as well as Lactobacilli (odds ratio = 23.40; 95% C.I. = 2.91-188.36; chi-square = 15.31; p = 0.0001). Comparing all the data, subjects treated with CA achieved lower salivary microbial colonization after 6 months of treatment compared with MB. Different additional strategies for plaque control and salivary microbial colonization must be triggered considering the type of orthodontic appliance.

Microbial profile in different orthodontic appliances by checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization: An in-vivo study

The design of the orthodontic bracket orappliance is 1 of the most important factors for creating retentive areas for biofilm formation. In orthodontics, this would be the first study to compare the microbial level changes in 3 different types of orthodontic appliances using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization technique. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the extent of appearance of orange and red microbial complexes in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment using aligners, conventional metallic fixed labial appliances, and lingual fixed appliances. A total of 60 patients, of which 20 patients were undergoing treatment with aligners, 20 patients with labial fixed appliances, and 20 patients with lingual fixed appliances, were included in our study. After 30days, debonded brackets and rinsed aligners were stored and processed for analysis with checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. Most bacterial species showed moderate counts, with the exception of Treponema denticola, which showed a higher count in all 3 types of appliances. Fusobacterium nucleatum, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and T denticola were present in a higher percentage in the lingual appliance. Fusobacterium periodontium and Prevotella intermedia were present in a higher percentage in the labial fixed appliance. Campylobacter rectus, Tannerella forsythia, and Prevotella melaninogenica counts were moderate in all 3 appliances, with the first 2 microbes showing slightly higher counts in aligners. The association between all the microorganisms were statistically insignificant, with the exception of Fnucleatum, which showed a strong statistically significant association in all 3 types of appliances. The microbial contamination in metallic brackets was higher than that of aligners, when used for a month. Lingual fixed appliances showed more microbial contamination than labial fixed appliances followed by aligners.

Corelaţia între estetica facială şi psihologia socială, din perspectivă ortodontică

It is known that there is a strong correlation between orthodontics and social psychology. The effect of the orthodontic treatment on facial esthetics has an important impact on attractiveness and personality of the patient. This correlation should be taken into consideration in all the phases of the orthodontic treatment: patient exam and problem list, treatment planning and type of orthodontic appliance, assessment of the orthodontic treatment. The evaluation of the orthodontic treatment results is different for the doctor and the patient and has led to a change of the paradigm, that of the soft tissues, which puts aesthetic and functional positions equally for the establishment of the treatment plan and for its evaluation.

Pharmacological interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment.

Pain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. It increases in proportion to the amount of force applied to the teeth, and the type of orthodontic appliance used can affect the intensity of the pain. Pain during orthodontic treatment has been shown to be the most common reason for people wanting to discontinue treatment, and has been ranked as the worst aspect of treatment. Although pharmacological methods of pain relief have been investigated, there remains some uncertainty among orthodontists about which painkillers are most suitable and whether pre-emptive analgesia is beneficial. We conducted this Cochrane Review to assess and summarize the international evidence relating to the effectiveness of analgesics for preventing this unwanted side effect associated with orthodontic treatment. The objectives of this review are to determine:- the effectiveness of drug interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment; and- whether there is a difference in the analgesic effect provided by different types, forms and doses of analgesia taken during orthodontic treatment. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 19 June 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL;the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 June 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 June 2017) and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 19 June 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched on the 19 June 2017 for ongoing studies. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to pain control during orthodontic treatment. Pain could be measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS), numerical rating scale (NRS) or categorical scale. Two review authors independently screened the search results, agreed the studies to be included and extracted information from the included studies regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms and results. We planned to resolve any discrepancies or disagreements through discussion. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We identified 32 relevant RCTs, which included 3110 participants aged 9 to 34 years, 2348 of whom we were able to include in our analyses. Seventeen of the studies had more than two arms. We were able to use data from 12 trials in meta-analyses that compared analgesics versus control (no treatment or a placebo); nine that compared non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) versus paracetamol; and two that compared pre-emptive versus post-treatment ibuprofen for pain control following orthodontic treatment. One study provided data for the comparison of NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic.We found moderate-quality evidence that analgesics effectively reduced pain following orthodontic treatment when compared to no treatment or a placebo at 2 hours (mean difference (MD) -11.66 mm on a 0 to 100 mm VAS, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.15 to -7.17; 10 studies, 685 participants), 6 hours (MD -24.27 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -31.44 to -17.11; 9 studies, 535 participants) and 24 hours (MD -21.19 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -28.31 to -14.06; 12 studies, 1012 participants).We did not find any evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAID and paracetamol at 2, 6 or 24 hours (at 24 hours: MD -0.51, 95% CI -8.93 to 7.92; 9 studies, 734 participants; low-quality evidence).Very low-quality evidence suggested pre-emptive ibuprofen gave better pain relief at 2 hours than ibuprofen taken post treatment (MD -11.30, 95% CI -16.27 to -6.33; one study, 41 participants), however, the difference was no longer significant at 6 or 24 hours.A single study of 48 participants compared topical NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic and showed no evidence of a difference in the effectiveness of the interventions (very low-quality evidence).Use of rescue analgesia was poorly reported. The very low-quality evidence did not show evidence of a difference between participants taking ibuprofen and participants taking paracetamol (relative risk (RR) 1.5, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.6). Nor did we find evidence of a difference between groups in likelihood of requiring rescue analgesia when ibuprofen was taken pre-emptively compared to after treatment (RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.9).Adverse effects were identified in one study, with one participant developing a rash that required treatment with antihistamines. This was provisionally diagnosed as a hypersensitivity to paracetamol. Analgesics are more effective at reducing pain following orthodontic treatment than placebo or no treatment. Low-quality evidence did not show a difference in effectiveness between systemic NSAIDs compared with paracetamol, or topical NSAIDs compared with local anaesthetic. More high-quality research is needed to investigate these comparisons, and to evaluate pre-emptive versus post-treatment administration of analgesics.