Effectiveness of photographs of study models for IOTN scoring.

AIM: The aim'of the present study was to investigate whether the same orthodontic information can be obtained from study models or photographs of study models in order to assess the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN). The study also aimed to assess inter- and intra-examiner reliability in the assessment of orthodontic treatment need. SAMPLE: Thirty sets of start and finish study models, demonstrating a range of malocclusions, were non-randomly obtained from patients treated at the University of Manchester Dental Hospital. The start models demonstrated a range of malocclusions (according to The British Standard Institute Incisor Classification 1983) of varying complexity. METHOD: Six photographic views of each set of study models were taken against a dark background. Millimetric distances were determined by using dividers to measure photographic distances and actual distances in millimeters from a ruler embedded in the image. Four examiners assessed the study models and photographs of the models in a random order and the Aesthetic and Dental Health components of the IOTN were recorded. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in the IOTN scores from photographs of study models compared with IOTN scoresrom study models of the same patient. CONCLUSION: The IOTN scores derived from photographs of study models are valid and reliable measures of malocclusion.

A randomized clinical trial to compare the Goshgarian and Nance palatal arch.

The aim of this trial was to evaluate whether a Nance or Goshgarian palatal arch was most effective for prevention of mesial drift, distal tipping, prevention of mesio-palatal rotation of the upper first permanent molars, and patient comfort and ease of removal. Patients were recruited from a district general hospital and a specialist orthodontic practice and randomly allocated to a Goshgarian (n = 29) or a Nance (n = 28) group. Pre-treatment study models (T1) were taken followed by the placement of the palatal arch, premolar extractions, and upper and lower fixed appliances. The clinical end point was 6 months (T2), at which time, an impression for an upper study model was taken. The amount of upper first permanent molar mesial movement, distal tipping, and mesio-palatal rotation was measured by scanning T1 and T2 study models and then using a software program to calculate molar changes. In addition, the patients recorded their discomfort scores using a seven-point Likert scale at each recall visit. Forty-nine patients (86 per cent) completed the trial. t-tests were used to compare molar movements between the Goshgarian and Nance palatal arch groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the palatal arches in terms of prevention of mesial drift or distal tipping (P > 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the amount of molar rotation between the arch types, with both exhibiting some disto-palatal rotation even though they were not activated for this movement. The Goshgarian palatal arch produced marginally more disto-palatal rotation than the Nance arch (P = 0.02), although this may not be considered clinically significant. A Mann-Whitney test revealed that there was also a statistically significant difference in pain scores between the Goshgarian and the Nance arch, with the latter being associated with more discomfort (P = 0.001). This trial did not support any preference in the use of the Goshgarian or Nance palatal arch, unless the slightly reduced patient discomfort with the Goshgarian arch is considered significant.

An alternative to study model storage.

The aim of this investigation was to evaluate whether the same orthodontic information can be obtained from study models and photographs of study models for the purposes of medico-legal reporting. Thirty sets of study models were obtained from orthodontic patients treated at the University of Manchester, UK. A mix of start and finish study models were chosen, with the start study models showing a range of malocclusions. Photographs of the study models were taken: anterior and right and left buccal views in occlusion and upper and lower occlusal views. Three examiners assessed the study models and photographs of the models in a random order. They recorded diagnostic information that would be useful for medico-legal reporting. This information was then compared for study models versus photographs of study models using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for interval data [overjet (mm), midline discrepancy (mm), and number of missing teeth] and kappa (kappa) and percentage agreement for the remaining variables. Generally, agreement between the information obtained from study models versus photographs of study models was high with kappa values being above 0.70 for most variables. The exception to this was overbite with kappa values ranging from 0.66 to 0.74. When ICCs were considered, again the two methods compared very favourably.

Prediction of compliance and completion of orthodontic treatment: are quality of life measures important?

The main aim of the present investigation was to evaluate whether there is an association between completion of orthodontic treatment and quality of life measures, i.e. age, gender, socio-economic status, type of appliance and need for orthodontic treatment. The secondary aim was to evaluate whether compliance with orthodontic treatment (missed appointments and appliance breakages) was associated with age, gender, socio-economic status, or type of appliance. This was a multi-centre longitudinal observational study carried out on 144 patients (65 males and 79 females) aged 10-19 years. Baseline data were collected: patient age, gender, socio-economic status, Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN), and type of appliance. Quality of life information, including orthodontic utility values and oral aesthetic subjective impact score (OASIS), were also collected at the start of treatment. The main outcome measure was whether a patient completed treatment. Compliance was assessed by recording the number of failed appointments and appliance breakages. Multiple regression analysis was used to investigate the association between independent and dependent variables. None of the baseline variables, including quality of life measures, were associated with a patient completing treatment, or their compliance with treatment (P > 0.05). Thus, quality of life measures (utility values or OASIS) do not add to our knowledge of who may complete, or co-operate with, orthodontic treatment. In addition, neither age, gender, socio-economic status nor clinical treatment need (IOTN) were useful in helping a clinician to choose potentially co-operative patients.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of:(1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and(2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (29th January 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 29th January 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to 29th January 2007). A search of the internet was also undertaken. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of:(1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and(2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (July 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2005) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2005). A search of the internet was also undertaken. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

The impact of fixed orthodontic appliances on daily life.

OBJECTIVE: i) To develop a measure of the impact of fixed orthodontic appliances on daily life. ii) To assess the impact of fixed appliances over time after initial appliance placement. iii) To investigate factors that may influence the impact of fixed appliances (age, gender and socioeconomic status). RESEARCH DESIGN: Questionnaire. CLINICAL SETTING: University Dental Hospital and Hope Hospital, Manchester. SAMPLE: Sixty-six patients, whose orthodontic appliances had just been placed. Twenty-eight patients whose orthodontic appliances were in place for at least six months were used for the reliability study. METHOD: The Impact of Fixed Appliances Questionnaire was developed using standard qualitative methods and pre-tested on 10 patients. This resulted in a questionnaire with nine conceptual impact sub-scales: aesthetic, functional limitation, dietary, oral hygiene, maintenance, physical, social, time constraints and travel/cost. The questionnaire was piloted on 66 patients, at the first, second and third visits after their fixed appliance had been placed, to assess the impact of fixed appliances over time. Questionnaire reliability, over a one-month time interval, was assessed on 40 patients who had been in treatment for at least six months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Impact of fixed appliances on daily life. RESULTS: The internal reliability of the questionnaire ranged from moderate to very good (Cronbach's alpha 0.56-0.89). Test-retest reliability was stable for most subscales (intra-class correlation coefficient 0.26-0.65). The questionnaire was said to have face validity and also content validity because of the method of questionnaire development through interviewing children with fixed appliances. None of the subscales scores reduced over time except aesthetic impact (p< 0.05) but this was probably not a clinically significant change. Age was the predominant variable to influence the impact of fixed appliances with younger children being less affected during their daily life (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire developed in this study is a reliable tool for assessing the impact of fixed appliances on the daily life of children. It is unlikely that the impact of fixed appliances on daily life reduces as the patient progresses through treatment. Younger patients are probably more adaptable to treatment with fixed appliances, in terms of reduced impact on daily life, so arguably treatment should be started as early as possible. This information could also be used to educate, reassure and motivate patients at the start of treatment.

Teledentistry for screening new patient orthodontic referrals. Part 2: GDP perception of the referral system.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate GDP opinion about a teledentistry system to screen new patient orthodontic referrals. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire. SAMPLE: Two hundred general dental practitioners (GDPs) were approached from Stockport, Rochdale, Oldham, Bury and Bolton in Greater Manchester, and High Peak in Derbyshire. METHOD: A questionnaire about a teledentistry system for new orthodontic patients was developed, following interviews with eight GDPs participating in a teledentistry trial. The questionnaire was posted to another 200 GDPs who were asked questions on issues such as the efficiency of a teledentistry system; the usefulness of a teledentistry system from the patients' point of view; their view of a teledentistry system; and any concerns they had relating to security, confidentiality and consent. RESULTS: Seventy one per cent of GDPs thought teledentistry for orthodontic referrals would be a good idea. At least 90% of responders agreed or neither agreed nor disagreed that patients would benefit from such a system. Over half of GDPs agreed or strongly agreed that there would be implications on their surgery time, expense and equipment security. CONCLUSIONS: GDPs generally supported a teledentistry system for new patient orthodontic referrals. Although perceived patient advantages were agreed, GDPs tended to be less sure about the impact on them in terms of set-up expenses, time in the surgery and appropriate remuneration.

Teledentistry for screening new patient orthodontic referrals. Part 1: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to evaluate the validity of a teledentistry system for screening new patient orthodontic referrals. The secondary aims were to evaluate whether the teledentistry system affected i) referral rates ii) inappropriate referral rates iii) number of failed appointments. STUDY DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SAMPLE: Fifteen dental practices in Greater Manchester, UK, were randomly allocated to either a teledentistry test group (n = 8) or a control group (n = 7). They referred 327 patients over a 15 month period. METHOD: Practitioners in the test group referred patients to one of two consultant orthodontists via a 'store and forward' teledentistry system consisting of photographs sent as email attachments. The decision to accept or not accept a referral on this basis was compared with the same decision choice when the same patient was subsequently seen on a new patient clinic. This measured the validity of the system with the clinic's decision used as the gold standard. Patients in the control group were referred using the usual letter system. Referral rates, inappropriate referrals and number of failed appointments were then compared between the teledentistry and control groups. RESULTS: The sensitivity (true positive value) of the teledentistry system was high at 0.80 with a positive predictive value of 0.92. The specificity (true negative value) was slightly lower at 0.73 with a negative predictive value of 0.50. The inappropriate referral rate for the teledentistry group was 8.2% and for the controls 26.2% (p = 0.037). There was no statistically significant difference in clinic attendance between teledentistry and control groups (p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Teledentistry is a valid system for positively identifying appropriate new patient orthodontic referrals. However, there is a risk that a patient is not accepted on the teledentistry system who would benefit from a full clinical examination. Teledentistry could be a significant factor in reducing the inappropriate referral rate. Patient participation in a teledentistry system does not appear to mean they are any more likely to attend their hospital appointment.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets.

BACKGROUND: Bonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment which increases operator chairside time and lengthens treatment time. A prolonged treatment is likely to increase the oral health risks of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances one of which is irreversible enamel decalcification. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Date of most recent searches: August 2002 (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2002). SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing two different adhesive groups. Participants were patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. The interventions were adhesives that bonded stainless steel brackets to all teeth except the molars. The primary outcome was debond or bracket failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were recorded on decalcification as a secondary outcome, if present. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted in duplicate by pairs of reviewers (Nicky Mandall (NM) and Rye Mattick (CRM); Declan Millett (DTM) and Joy Hickman (JH2)). Since the data were not presented in a form that was amenable to meta-analysis, the results of the review are presented in narrative form only. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. A chemical cured composite was compared with a light cure composite (one trial), a conventional glass ionomer cement (one trial) and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (one trial). The quality of the trial reports was generally poor. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this review, however, suggestions are made for methods of improving future research involving orthodontic adhesives.

Upper removable appliance or Jones Jig for distalizing first molars? A randomized clinical trial.

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of two intra-oral methods of distalizing upper first permanent molars: an upper removable appliance (URA) and a Jones Jig. SAMPLE: Twelve patients were randomly allocated to URA treatment and 11 patients to a Jones Jig. METHODS: Upper study models were collected at the start of treatment and after 6 months of appliance wear. The amount of distal movement, tipping and rotation of the upper first permanent molars and mesial movement of the upper first permanent premolars was measured using a reflex metrograph. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment methods for any of the outcome measures (P < 0.05). Distal movement obtained by both appliances was approximately 1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of distal movement obtained with both appliances was small and no differences were shown in the amount of molar tooth movement. It is suggested that there is no advantage in using the Jones Jig as a non-compliance appliance.

A randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of canine lacebacks with reference to canine tip.

AIM: To assess the effectiveness of canine lacebacks on the proclination of the upper incisors with reference to pre-treatment canine tip. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SAMPLE: Patients receiving upper and lower fixed appliances attending the orthodontic departments of five orthodontic treatment providers. Sixteen patients received canine lacebacks as part of their treatment and 19 patients did not have canine lacebacks. METHOD: Patients were randomly allocated to receive canine lacebacks or not receive canine lacebacks. Upper study models were collected at the initial archwire placement and then when the working 0.019 x 0.025-inch stainless steel archwire was placed. The start canine angulation, change in upper incisor proclination/overjet, and any mesial movement of the upper first permanent molars during levelling and aligning was measured with a reflex metrograph. STATISTICS: The effect of the use of canine lacebacks on upper incisor proclination and mesial molar movement was assessed using Student t-tests. Regression analysis was used to evaluate any effect of the initial angulation of the canine. RESULTS: A mean incisor retroclination of 0.5 mm was observed in the canine lacebacks compared with a mean proclination of 0.36 mm when canine lacebacks were not used (P = 0.025). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for mesial movement of upper first molars (P = 0.99). If the canine was more distally inclined at the start of treatment, the incisors was more likely to procline, regardless of whether or not canine lacebacks were used (P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: The effect of canine lacebacks on preventing upper incisor proclination at the start of treatment is in the order of 1 mm and their effect on mesial molar movement is insignificant. Canines lacebacks have similar effects that are independent of pre-treatment canine angulation.

Ethical and scientific decision making in distraction osteogenesis.

OBJECTIVE: To propose a prospective registry for distraction osteogenesis research. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 82 reports, of which 11 were review articles, 17 were animal studies, 5 were theoretical models, and 49 were case reports/series. CONCLUSIONS: So far, the literature concerning distraction osteogenesis does not allow reliable choices to be made on the most appropriate form of distraction osteogenesis in different clinical decisions or whether it is superior to osteotomy or nontreatment. A prospective registry is proposed to hasten critical appraisal of distraction osteogenesis.

Orthodontic adhesives: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which orthodontic adhesives (a). bond orthodontic brackets to teeth more reliably and (b). are more effective at preventing decalcification. DATA SOURCES: The search strategy for the literature review was carried out according to the standard Cochrane systematic review methodology. The Cochrane Clinical Trials Register and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Register were searched for randomized clinical trials and controlled clinical trials. All volumes that had not already been assessed by the Oral Health Group in the European Journal of Orthodontics, American Journal of Orthodontics, Journals of Orthodontics, and Angle Orthodontist were hand-searched. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied when considering the studies to be included in this review. DATA SELECTION: The primary outcome measure was the failure of the orthodontic adhesive. A secondary outcome of decalcification occurring around the orthodontic bracket was also recorded, if data were available. DATA EXTRACTION: Two randomized clinical trials and one controlled clinical trial were identified that fulfilled all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The trials compared: (a). light- and chemically-cured composite; (b). chemically-cured composite and conventional glass ionomer cement; and (c). chemically-cured composite and light-cured compomer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Each paper was quality assessed by two people independently. A qualitative analysis of the trials in the review is presented. The data presentation, for the majority of the trials, precluded the use of suggested Cochrane Health Group statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this review; however, suggestions are made for methods of improving future research involving orthodontic adhesives.

Are photographic records reliable for orthodontic screening?

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the reliability of a panel of orthodontists for accepting new patient referrals based on clinical photographs. SAMPLE: Eight orthodontists from Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Chester, and Derbyshire observed clinical photographs of 40 consecutive new patients attending the orthodontic department, Hope Hospital, Salford. METHOD: They recorded whether or not they would accept the patient, as a new patient referral, in their department. Each consultant was asked to take into account factors, such as oral hygiene, dental development, and severity of the malocclusion. STATISTICS: Kappa statistic for multiple-rater agreement and kappa statistic for intra-observer reliability were calculated. RESULTS: Inter-observer panel agreement for accepting new patient referrals based on photographic information was low (multiple rater kappa score 0.37). Intra-examiner agreement was better (kappa range 0.34-0.90). CONCLUSION: Clinician agreement for screening and accepting orthodontic referrals based on clinical photographs is comparable to that previously reported for other clinical decision making.

A randomized clinical trial to compare three methods of orthodontic space closure.

AIM: To compare the rates of orthodontic space closure for: Active ligatures, polyurethane powerchain (Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, RMO Europe, Parc d'Innovation, Rue Geiler de Kaysersberg, 67400 Illkirch-Graffenstaden, Strasbourg, France) and nickel titanium springs. SAMPLE: Patients entering the space closure phase of fixed orthodontic treatment attending six orthodontic providers. Twelve patients received active ligatures (48 quadrants), 10 patients received powerchain (40 quadrants) and 11 patients, nickel-titanium springs (44 quadrants). METHOD: Patients were randomly allocated for treatment with active ligatures, powerchain or nickel titanium springs. Upper and lower study models were collected at the start of space closure (T(o)) and 4 months later (T(1)). We recorded whether the patient wore Class II or Class III elastics. Space present in all four quadrants was measured, by a calibrated examiner, using Vernier callipers at T(o) and T(1.) The rate of space closure, in millimetres per month (4 weeks) and a 4-monthly rate, was then calculated. Examiner reliability was assessed at least 2 weeks later. RESULTS: Mean rates of space closure were 0.35 mm/month for active ligatures, 0.58 mm/month for powerchain, and 0.81 mm/month for NiTi springs. No statistically significant differences were found between any methods with the exception of NiTi springs showing more rapid space closure than active ligatures (P < 0.05). There was no effect of inter-arch elastics on rate of space closure. CONCLUSIONS: NiTi springs gave the most rapid rate of space closure and may be considered the treatment of choice. However, powerchain provides a cheaper treatment option that is as effective. The use of inter-arch elastics does not appear to influence rate of space closure.

The role of removable appliances in contemporary orthodontics.

The contemporary uses of removable appliances are considerably more limited than in the past. This article discusses possible reasons for their declining use, including recognition of their limitations. It is possible to achieve adequate occlusal improvement with these appliances providing that suitable cases are chosen. Specific indications for their appropriate use on their own in the mixed dentition are presented. Removables can also be used as an adjunct to more complex treatments, to enhance the effect of fixed appliances, headgear or in preparation for functional appliances. Further research is required to confirm whether their use in conjunction with more complex treatments enhances the quality and efficiency of treatment or not.

The relationship between normative orthodontic treatment need and measures of consumer perception.

AIM: The first aim was to investigate whether there was an association between normative (clinician measured) orthodontic treatment need and the following consumer values, 1) child self-perceived aesthetic need, 2) child self-esteem, 3) oral aesthetic subjective impact score (OASIS). The secondary aim was to investigate whether there was an association between child self-esteem and 1) child self-perceived aesthetic need 2) OASIS. STUDY TYPE: Prospective, cross-sectional. SAMPLE: A random sample of 439, 11-12 year-old children was selected from schools in Greater Manchester. METHOD: Normative and child self-perceived orthodontic treatment need were measured using the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN). The subjects completed questionnaires to measure their self-esteem (Piers Harris) and OASIS score. RESULTS: Children with higher normative IOTN scores had more negative psycho-social impact from their malocclusion (P<0.001). However, there was no association between clinician IOTN grades and child self-esteem. Clinician and child-rated IOTN aesthetic component (IOTN AC) grades were statistically significantly different (P<0.05). Higher child self-esteem scores were associated with lower child rated IOTN AC grades (P<0.05) and lower OASIS scores (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Only one of the consumer measures studies (OASIS) reflected normative/clinician IOTN grades. A high child self-esteem appears to be related to their self-perceived malocclusion and its psycho-social impact. It is still important to have additional information derived from consumer based measures rather than rely solely on normative measures of need. It remains to be seen whether these factors subsequently influence demand and uptake of orthodontic treatment.

The use of general anaesthesia for orthodontic extractions.

AIM: The aims of the study were to evaluate 1) the uptake of general anaesthesia 2) the dental factors influencing use of general anaesthesia for routine orthodontic extractions. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: All patients, aged 16 years and under (n=145), currently undergoing orthodontic treatment at the University Dental Hospital of Manchester, who had received extractions, for their current course of treatment. METHOD: Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire after appliance adjustment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 1) type of anaesthesia received for the most recent orthodontic extractions 2) whether a choice of anaesthesia was given 3) number of permanent teeth removed for the current course of orthodontic treatment 4) previous experience of general anaesthesia. RESULTS: The response was 87%. Twenty-two per cent of patients received general anaesthesia, 64% local anaesthesia and 14% inhalation sedation. Sixty-five per cent of patients were not given a choice of anaesthesia for extractions. Stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that a patient was more likely to receive a general anaesthetic if: 1) they had received a GA in the past (for fillings or extractions) 2) more than four teeth were extracted. CONCLUSIONS: Local anaesthesia was predominantly used for orthodontic extractions although the use of general anaesthesia was still quite high. The majority of patients were not given a choice of anaesthesia for routine extractions. Previous exposure to general anaesthesia and removal of more than four teeth increased the likelihood of a patient receiving general anaesthesia.