Orthodontic and orthopedic management of dentofacial deformity from juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: An update on the knowledge regarding the orthopedic/orthodontic role in treating JIA-related dentofacial deformities is relevant. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to assess the level of evidence regarding the management of dentofacial deformity from juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with orthodontics and/or dentofacial orthopedics. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched without time or language restrictions up to 31 January 2024 (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature). SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were studies dealing with JIA subjects receiving treatment with orthodontic and/or dentofacial orthopedic functional appliances. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: After the removal of duplicate studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment according to ROBINS-I guidelines were conducted. Data extraction was conducted by two independent authors. RESULTS: The electronic database search identified 397 eligible articles after the removal of duplicates. Following the application of the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 articles were left for inclusion. Two trials were associated with a severe risk of bias, four trials were at moderate risk of bias, and the other five presented a low risk of bias. Various research groups employed and documented the effects of different types of appliances and methodologies. The study heterogeneity did not allow for meta-analyses. In addition, a lack of uniformity in treatment objectives was observed across the included studies. After treatment with dentofacial orthopedics skeletal improvement was demonstrated in 10 studies, and a decrease in orofacial signs and symptoms was reported in 7 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Across the available literature, there is minor evidence to suggest that dentofacial orthopedics may be beneficial in the management of dentofacial deformities from JIA. There is little evidence to suggest that it can reduce orofacial signs and symptoms in patients with JIA. Based on current evidence, it is not possible to outline clinical recommendations for specific aspects of orthopedic management in growing subjects with JIA-related dentofacial deformity. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023390746).

Accuracy and reliability of magnetic resonance imaging in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a non-ionizing imaging technique. Using MRI in dentistry may potentially lower the general radiation dose of the examined population, provided MRI can replace various radiation-based images. Furthermore, novel MRI imaging modalities for three-dimensional and two-dimensional cephalometrics have recently been developed for orthodontic diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of MRI in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. SEARCH METHODS: An electronic search was conducted on 20 November 2022 in the following databases: PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane. The search was updated on 30 August 2023. Furthermore, a grey literature search was performed in Google Scholar and Open-Grey. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review included descriptive, observational, cohort studies, cross-sectional, case-control studies, and randomized/non-randomized trials related to the research question. The study excluded studies related to patients with syndromes, chronic diseases, craniofacial anomalies, or bone diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The included studies were quality assessed using the "Joanna Brigg's Critical Appraisal Tool for diagnostic test accuracy". The GRADE approach for non-randomized studies was used for strength-of-evidence analysis. RESULTS: Eight of the 10 included studies compared MRI with either cone beam computed tomography or lateral cephalogram and found a high intra- and inter-rater agreement for landmark identification. The risk of bias was high in four studies, moderate in three, and low in three studies. Homogeneity was lacking among the included studies in terms of MRI imaging parameters and sample characteristics. This should be taken into consideration by future studies where uniformity with respect to these parameters may be considered. CONCLUSIONS: Despite dissimilarity and heterogeneity in the sample population and other methodological aspects, all the included studies concluded that MRI enjoyed considerable intra- and inter-examiner reliability and was comparable to current diagnostic standards in orthodontics. Furthermore, the studies agreed on the innovative potential of MRI in radiation-free diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics in the future. REGISTRATION: CRD number: CRD420223XXXXX.

Management of unilateral craniofacial microsomia with orthopaedic functional appliances: A systematic literature review.

The study aimed to summarize current knowledge regarding the use of orthopaedic functional appliances (OFA) in managing unilateral craniofacial microsomia (UCM). The eligibility criteria for the review were (1) assessing use of OFA as a stand-alone treatment and (2) using OFA in combination during or after MDO. The PICO (population, intervention, comparison and outcome) format formulated clinical questions with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. No limitations concerning language and publication year were applied. Information sources: A literature search of Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science databases without restrictions up to 30 September 2022. The risk of bias was assessed. According to Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines, two independent authors conducted data extraction. The level of evidence for included articles was evaluated based on the Oxford evidence-based medicine database. Due to the heterogeneity of studies and insufficient data for statistical pooling, meta-analysis was not feasible. Therefore, the results were synthesized narratively. A total of 437 articles were retrieved. Of these, nine met inclusion criteria: five assessing OFA and four assessing OFA during or after MDO. There is limited evidence to suggest that stand-alone and combination treatment with OFA is beneficial for treating mild-to-moderate UCM-related dentofacial deformities in short term. No studies assessed the burden of care. In the management of UCM, there is insufficient evidence supporting the efficacy of OFA as a stand-alone treatment or when combined with MDO. Additionally, there is a lack of evidence regarding treatment protocols and the effect on the condyles and the TMJ. The study was registered at Prospero database number CRD42020204969.

Assessment of masticatory efficiency based on glucose concentration in orthodontic patients: A methodological study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for malocclusion can cause discomfort and pain in the teeth and periodontium, which may impair masticatory efficiency. The glucose concentration method is widely used to assess masticatory efficiency for its convenience in the clinical situation, although its validity has not been shown. OBJECTIVES: The aims were to determine the validity of the glucose concentration method and investigate if this method can be applicable to orthodontic patients with braces. METHOD: Sixteen healthy individuals (7 men, 9 women, and 26 ± 5 years old) and 16 patients with malocclusions needing orthodontic treatment (5 men, 11 women, and 26 ± 4 years old) participated. Glucose concentration was measured after 5-, 10-, and 15-s mastication of gummy jelly and compared to Hue values obtained from the color-changing gum method (reference method). In addition, all participants were asked to fill out the Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP) to assess differences in perception related to the mouth before and after the placement of braces. RESULTS: Glucose concentrations were strongly correlated to measures of the two-color chewing gum methods (R2  = 0.965). Both the glucose extraction and chewing gum hue value were the smallest for 5 s chewing cycles and increased as the number of chewing strokes increased for the 15 s chewing cycles. (Hue: R² = 0.510, p < 0.001; glucose: R² = 0.711, p < 0.001) Masticatory efficiency assessed by both methods was significantly lower in orthodontic patients compared to controls (p < 0.05), even though it was not affected by bonding (p > 0.09). In addition, OHIP scores in physical pain dimension and psychological disability were higher in orthodontic patients than in the control group (p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: Measurement of glucose concentration was confirmed as a reliable and convenient method for assessing masticatory efficiency. Furthermore, it appears that this method is applicable to patients with braces whose perception in the oral cavity could change.

Survey on retention procedures and use of thermoplastic retainers among orthodontists in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic retention is the most important factor after successful orthodontic treatment. The use of thermoplastic retainers has increased in recent years, but information is lacking about the product materials and orthodontists' awareness of the products they use. The aim of this survey was to map the retention protocols among Scandinavian orthodontists, particularly their use of thermoplastic retainers. Furthermore, the aim was to investigate their knowledge of thermoplastic materials and record any possible adverse effects. METHODS: An online questionnaire was prepared, and 667 orthodontists in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark were invited to take the survey. The survey was sent to all members of the national orthodontic associations using Nettskjema in Norway and Microsoft Forms in Sweden and Denmark. Data were collected anonymously and analyzed using chi-square and correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Of the 667 orthodontists, 432 (64%) responded (59% female). The most common retention protocol (51%) was fixed retainer in both maxilla and mandible and thermoplastic retainer in the maxilla. Two-thirds of the orthodontists were unaware of the thermoplastic material used, and 58% did not acquire knowledge of the materials. Only 1% of the respondents had registered adverse reactions to thermoplastic retainers, and none were aware of the type of material that was used. CONCLUSIONS: Scandinavian orthodontists use similar retention protocols, with the most common being fixed retainer in the mandible and dual retention, fixed, and thermoplastic retainer in the maxilla. Orthodontists' knowledge about thermoplastic materials was insufficient, but adverse effects related to thermoplastic retainer use were rare.