Clinical outcomes of lingual fully customized vs labial straight wire systems : Assessment based on American Board of Orthodontics criteria.

PURPOSE: To evaluate orthodontic treatment outcome in patients treated with a lingual appliance (Incognito™ Appliance System, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) versus patients treated with a labial appliance (Victory series™, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). METHODS: A total of 72 patients were retrospectively analyzed. The complexity of each case was evaluated using the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Discrepancy Index (DI), and orthodontic clinical outcomes were evaluated using the ABO Objective Grading System (cast-radiograph evaluation: C­R Eval). RESULTS: The mean total ABO C­R Eval score was 16 ± 9.1 in the labial appliance group and 12.7 ± 5.4 in lingual appliance group (p = 0.152). The mean total ABO-DI scores were 16.3 ± 7.3 and 15.4 ± 6.6 in the labial and lingual appliance groups, respectively (p = 0.445). A significant correlation was observed between the total DI and total C­R Eval scores. CONCLUSIONS: In this particular study and in the hands of two experienced orthodontists, no differences in the finishing quality of orthodontic treatments using the lingual technique or the buccal appliance technique were found. However, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are necessary in order to generalize these results.

Effectiveness of lingual versus labial fixed appliances in adults according to the Peer Assessment Rating index.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of lingual treatment and labial fixed appliances in the treatment of adult orthodontic patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 72 patients. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was measured at the start (T0) and end (T1) of treatment. Significant differences between treatment means were determined by means of analysis of variancewith the Bonferroni correction or with the use of Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The lingual group had a mean pretreatment age of 28.6 ± 6.7 years, and the labial group had a pretreatment age of 26.6 ± 9.5 years. This difference was statistically not significant. The mean pre- and posttreatment PAR scores in the labial group were 22.9 ± 6.2 and 2.1 ± 2.3, respectively, and the mean pre- and posttreatment PAR scores in the lingual group were 26.5 ± 8.3 and 2.3 ± 2.5. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Lingual and labial appliances produced similar reductions in PAR scores. There was no difference in the posttreatment PAR scores between the lingual and labial treatment groups. Further studies involving larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required to confirm the results obtained.

Adverse effects of lingual and buccal orthodontic techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the prevalence of adverse effects associated with lingual and buccal fixed orthodontic techniques. METHODS: Two authors searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and LILACS databases up to October 2014. Agreement between the authors was quantified by the Cohen kappa statistic. The following variables were analyzed: pain, caries, eating and speech difficulties, and oral hygiene. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies, and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used for randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Eight articles were included in this systematic review. Meta-analysis showed a statistically greater risk of pain of the tongue (odds ratio [OR], 28.32; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 8.60-93.28; P <0.001), cheeks (OR, 0.087; 95% CI, 0.036-0.213; P <0.0010), and lips (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.39; P <0.001), as well as for the variables of speech difficulties (OR, 9.39; 95% CI, 3.78-23.33; P <0.001) and oral hygiene (OR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.02-11.95; P = 0.047) with lingual orthodontics. However, no statistical difference was found with respect to eating difficulties (OR, 3.74; 95% CI, 0.86-16.28; P = 0.079) and caries (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.17-7.69; P = 0.814 [Streptococcus mutans] and OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.20-2.23; P = 0.515 [Lactobacillus]). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that patients wearing lingual appliances have more pain, speech difficulties, and problems in maintaining adequate oral hygiene, although no differences for eating and caries risk were identified. Further prospective studies involving larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm these results.

Differences in psychological traits between lingual and labial orthodontic patients: perfectionism, body image, and the impact of dental esthetics.

OBJECTIVE: To examine some of the patients' psychological traits in relation to their levels of perfectionism and their body image, and to discover whether these differ between lingual and labial orthodontic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was designed with a consecutive sample of 80 patients attending a private orthodontic office. Three questionnaires were used to assess the patients' body image and level of perfectionism. The mean age was 33 years. The men numbered 32 and the women 48. The validated Spanish version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetic Questionnaire (PIDAQ) was used to assess the psychosocial impact of their dental esthetics. The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) was used to assess how perfectionist the patients were. A version of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ) was used for assessment of their body image. Student's t-test was used to compare the means and 95% confidence intervals (P < .05), and a logistic regression model was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The PIDAQ (55.4 vs 60, P  =  .218) and MBSRQ (128.7 vs 125.9, P  =  .523) results of the patients who chose lingual orthodontics did not differ significantly from those who opted for labial orthodontics. However, the MPS scores of the lingual orthodontic patients were significantly higher (95.9 vs 86.3, P  =  .044), and high social class, over 30 years of age, and perfectionist traits were significant independent variables in this group. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study may indicate that lingual orthodontic patients are more perfectionists than labial orthodontic patients.