Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children.

BACKGROUND: Prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) may be due to jaw or tooth position or both. The upper jaw (maxilla) can be too far back or the lower jaw (mandible) too far forward; the upper front teeth (incisors) may be tipped back or the lower front teeth tipped forwards. Orthodontic treatment uses different types of braces (appliances) fitted inside or outside the mouth (or both) and fixed to the teeth. A facemask is the most commonly reported non-surgical intervention used to correct Class III malocclusion. The facemask rests on the forehead and chin, and is connected to the upper teeth via an expansion appliance (known as 'rapid maxillary expansion' (RME)). Using elastic bands placed by the wearer, a force is applied to the top teeth and jaw to pull them forwards and downward. Some orthodontic interventions involve a surgical component; these go through the gum into the bone (e.g. miniplates). In severe cases, or if orthodontic treatment is unsuccessful, people may need jaw (orthognathic) surgery as adults. This review updates one published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases and two trial registries up to 16 January 2023. Review authors screened reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adolescents (16 years of age or under) randomised to receive orthodontic treatment to correct prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion), or no (or delayed) treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was overjet (i.e. prominence of the lower front teeth); our secondary outcomes included ANB (A point, nasion, B point) angle (which measures the relative position of the maxilla to the mandible). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 29 RCTs that randomised 1169 children (1102 analysed). The children were five to 13 years old at the start of treatment. Most studies measured outcomes directly after treatment; only one study provided long-term follow-up. All studies were at high risk of bias as participant and personnel blinding was not possible. Non-surgical orthodontic treatment versus untreated control We found moderate-certainty evidence that non-surgical orthodontic treatments provided a substantial improvement in overjet (mean difference (MD) 5.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.81 to 6.25; 4 studies, 184 participants) and ANB (MD 3.05°, 95% CI 2.40 to 3.71; 8 studies, 345 participants), compared to an untreated control group, when measured immediately after treatment. There was high heterogeneity in the analyses, but the effects were consistently in favour of the orthodontic treatment groups rather than the untreated control groups (studies tested facemask (with or without RME), chin cup, orthodontic removable traction appliance, tandem traction bow appliance, reverse Twin Block with lip pads and RME, Reverse Forsus and mandibular headgear). Longer-term outcomes were measured in only one study, which evaluated facemask. It presented low-certainty evidence that improvements in overjet and ANB were smaller at 3-year follow-up than just after treatment (overjet MD 2.5 mm, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.79; ANB MD 1.4°, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.37; 63 participants), and were not found at 6-year follow-up (overjet MD 1.30 mm, 95% CI -0.16 to 2.76; ANB MD 0.7°, 95% CI -0.74 to 2.14; 65 participants). In the same study, at the 6-year follow-up, clinicians made an assessment of whether surgical correction of participants' jaw position was likely to be needed in the future. A perceived need for surgical correction was observed more often in participants who had not received facemask treatment (odds ratio (OR) 3.34, 95% CI 1.21 to 9.24; 65 participants; low-certainty evidence). Surgical orthodontic treatment versus untreated control One study of 30 participants evaluated surgical miniplates, with facemask or Class III elastics, against no treatment, and found a substantial improvement in overjet (MD 7.96 mm, 95% CI 6.99 to 8.40) and ANB (MD 5.20°, 95% CI 4.48 to 5.92; 30 participants). However, the evidence was of low certainty, and there was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment. Facemask versus another non-surgical orthodontic treatment Eight studies compared facemask or modified facemask (with or without RME) to another non-surgical orthodontic treatment. Meta-analysis did not suggest that other treatments were superior; however, there was high heterogeneity, with mixed, uncertain findings (very low-certainty evidence). Facemask versus surgically-anchored appliance There may be no advantage of adding surgical anchorage to facemasks for ANB (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.07; 4 studies, 143 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for overjet was of very low certainty (MD -0.40 mm, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.50; 1 study, 43 participants). Facemask variations Adding RME to facemask treatment may have no additional benefit for ANB (MD -0.15°, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.64; 2 studies, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for overjet was of low certainty (MD 1.86 mm, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.33; 1 study, 31 participants). There may be no benefit in terms of effect on ANB of alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction compared to using expansion alone (MD -0.46°, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.10; 4 studies, 131 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence showed that non-surgical orthodontic treatments (which included facemask, reverse Twin Block, orthodontic removable traction appliance, chin cup, tandem traction bow appliance and mandibular headgear) improved the bite and jaw relationship immediately post-treatment. Low-certainty evidence showed surgical orthodontic treatments were also effective. One study measured longer-term outcomes and found that the benefit from facemask was reduced three years after treatment, and appeared to be lost by six years. However, participants receiving facemask treatment were judged by clinicians to be less likely to need jaw surgery in adulthood. We have low confidence in these findings and more studies are required to reach reliable conclusions. Orthodontic treatment for Class III malocclusion can be invasive, expensive and time-consuming, so future trials should include measurement of adverse effects and patient satisfaction, and should last long enough to evaluate whether orthodontic treatment in childhood avoids the need for jaw surgery in adulthood.

How well do orthodontic RCTs comply with CONSORT guidelines?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the changes in compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in four orthodontic journals. To assess whether reporting of randomization, concealment, and blinding has improved. METHODS: Electronic hand searching was undertaken to identify orthodontic RCTs published in four orthodontic journals from January 2016 to June 2017 (T1) and from January 2019 to June 2020 (T2). The journals were the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (AJO-DO), Angle Orthodontist (AO), European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), and Journal of Orthodontics (JO). Each item on the CONSORT checklist was scored as either reported, not reported, or not applicable for each paper reporting an RCT. RESULTS: The study included 69 papers reporting an RCT published in T1 and 64 RCTs published in T2. The median CONSORT score in T1 was 48.7% (interquartile range [IQR] 27.6%, 68.6%) and 67% in T2 (IQR 43.9%, 79.5%). This increase was statistically significant (P = 0.001) and largely attributable to improved reporting in AO (P = 0.016) and EJO (P = 0.023). Reporting did not change significantly in AJO-DO (P = 0.13) or in JO (P = 1.0). Reporting of random allocation sequence generation (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.01, 4.29) and concealment of allocation (OR 2.27%, 95% CI 1.12, 4.57) were significantly higher in T2 compared with T1. Reporting of blinding did not change significantly. CONCLUSION: Overall reporting of CONSORT items in reports of orthodontic RCTs published in the AJO-DO, AO, EJO, and JO, improved significantly from 2016-17 to 2019-20. This could be improved further by authors, journal referees, and editors adhering to the guidelines.

Diversity of authors in the British Journal of Orthodontics and Journal of Orthodontics over the last 50 years.

AIMS: To explore any changes in the perceived gender and affiliation of first authors of papers published in the British Journal of Orthodontics (BJO) and Journal of Orthodontics (JO), over the last 50 years. METHODS: Electronic hand searches of the BJO and JO from 1973 to 2021, were undertaken to identify research and clinical papers published the first volume of the BJO (1973-74) and then the first two volumes of each subsequent decade i.e. 1980-81; 1990-91 to 2020-21. Articles such as Editorials, Product Updates and Abstract summaries, were excluded.The perceived gender of the first author was identified from their forename, internet sources and/or personal knowledge, where possible. The country of the first author's affiliation was identified from the author details stated in the papers. The countries were then grouped into geographical areas. RESULTS: A total of 385 papers were identified with a steady increase from 1973 to 2021. There was a statistically significant increase in papers published by authors who were perceived to be female (odds ratio 8.33; 95% CI 4.75, 14.64). The increase in papers published by non-UK affiliated first authors was significant (odds ratio 5.01; 95% CI 2.78, 9.02). CONCLUSIONS: The Journal has seen a significant change, over the last 50 years, in its authorship profile from nearly exclusively male, UK based authors to more than 60% of published papers having a first author who was perceived as being female and 37% originating from outside the UK.

Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children.

BACKGROUND: Crowded teeth develop when there is not enough space in the jaws into which the teeth can erupt. Crowding can affect baby teeth (deciduous dentititon), adult teeth (permanent dentition), or both, and is a common reason for referral to an orthodontist. Crowded teeth can affect a child's self-esteem and quality of life. Early loss of baby teeth as a result of tooth decay or trauma, can lead to crowded permanent teeth. Crowding tends to increase with age, especially in the lower jaw. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic intervention for preventing or correcting crowded teeth in children. To test the null hypothesis that there are no differences in outcomes between different orthodontic interventions for preventing or correcting crowded teeth in children. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 11 January 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any active interventions to prevent or correct dental crowding in children and adolescents, such as orthodontic braces or extractions, compared to no or delayed treatment, placebo treatment or another active intervention. The studies had to include at least 80% of participants aged 16 years and under. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, independently and in duplicate, extracted information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms and results. We resolved any disagreements by liaising with a third review author. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We calculated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We undertook meta-analysis when studies of similar comparisons reported comparable outcome measures, using the random-effects model. We used the I2 statistic as a measure of statistical heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified 24 RCTs that included 1512 participants, 1314 of whom were included in analyses. We assessed 23 studies as being at high risk of bias and one as unclear.  The studies investigated 17 comparisons. Twenty studies evaluated fixed appliances and auxiliaries (lower lingual arch, lower lip bumper, brackets, archwires, lacebacks, headgear and adjunctive vibrational appliances); two studies evaluated removable appliances and auxiliaries (Schwarz appliance, eruption guidance appliance); and two studies evaluated dental extractions (lower deciduous canines or third molars). The evidence should be interpreted cautiously as it is of very low certainty. Most interventions were evaluated by a single study. Fixed appliances and auxiliaries One study found that use of a lip bumper may reduce crowding in the early permanent dentition (MD -4.39 mm, 95% CI -5.07 to -3.71; 34 participants). One study evaluated lower lingual arch but did not measure amount of crowding. One study concluded that coaxial nickel-titanium (NiTi) archwires may cause more tooth movement in the lower arch than single-stranded NiTi archwires (MD 6.77 mm, 95% CI 5.55 to 7.99; 24 participants). Another study, comparing copper NiTi versus NiTi archwires, found NiTi to be more effective for reducing crowding (MD 0.49 mm, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63, 66 participants). Single studies did not show evidence of one type of archwire being better than another for Titinol versus Nitinol; nickel-titanium versus stainless steel or multistrand stainless steel; and multistranded stainless steel versus stainless steel.  Nor did single studies find evidence of a difference in amount of crowding between self-ligating and conventional brackets, active and passive self-ligating brackets, lacebacks added to fixed appliances versus fixed appliances alone, or cervical pull headgear versus minor interceptive procedures. Meta-analysis of two studies showed no evidence that adding vibrational appliances to fixed appliances reduces crowding at 8 to 10 weeks (MD 0.24 mm, 95% CI -0.81 to 1.30; 119 participants). Removable appliances and auxiliaries One study found use of the Schwarz appliance may be effective at treating dental crowding in the lower arch (MD -2.14 mm, 95% CI -2.79 to -1.49; 28 participants). Another study found an eruption guidance appliance may reduce the number of children with crowded teeth after one year of treatment (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.68; 46 participants); however, this may have been due to an increase in lower incisor proclination in the treated group. Whether these gains were maintained in the longer term was not assessed. Dental extractions One study found that extracting children's lower deciduous canines had more effect on crowding after one year than no treatment (MD -4.76 mm, 95 CI -6.24 to -3.28; 83 participants), but this was alongside a reduction in arch length. One study found that extracting wisdom teeth did not seem to reduce crowding any more than leaving them in the mouth (MD -0.30 mm, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.70; 77 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most interventions were assessed by single, small studies. We found very low-certainty evidence that lip bumper, used in the mixed dentition, may be effective for preventing crowding in the early permanent dentition, and a Schwarz appliance may reduce crowding in the lower arch. We also found very low-certainty evidence that coaxial NiTi may be better at reducing crowding than single-stranded NiTi, and that NiTi may be better than copper NiTi. As the current evidence is of very low certainty, our findings may change with future research.

Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites.

BACKGROUND: A posterior crossbite occurs when the top back teeth bite inside the bottom back teeth. The prevalence of posterior crossbite is around 4% and 17% of children and adolescents in Europe and America, respectively. Several treatments have been recommended to correct this problem, which is related to such dental issues as tooth attrition, abnormal development of the jaws, joint problems, and imbalanced facial appearance. Treatments involve expanding the upper jaw with an orthodontic appliance, which can be fixed (e.g. quad-helix) or removable (e.g. expansion plate). This is the third update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different orthodontic treatments for posterior crossbites. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 8 April 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites in children and adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, independently and in duplicate, screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. A third review author participated to resolve disagreements. We used risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarise dichotomous data (event), unless there were zero values in trial arms, in which case we used odds ratios (ORs). We used mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs to summarise continuous data. We performed meta-analyses using fixed-effect models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 studies that randomised approximately 1410 participants. Eight studies were at low risk of bias, 15 were at high risk of bias, and eight were unclear. Intervention versus observation For children (age 7 to 11 years), quad-helix was beneficial for posterior crossbite correction compared to observation (OR 50.59, 95% CI 26.77 to 95.60; 3 studies, 149 participants; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in higher final inter-molar distances (MD 4.71 mm, 95% CI 4.31 to 5.10; 3 studies, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For children, expansion plates were also beneficial for posterior crossbite correction compared to observation (OR 25.26, 95% CI 13.08 to 48.77; 3 studies, 148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in higher final inter-molar distances (MD 3.30 mm, 95% CI 2.88 to 3.73; 3 studies, 145 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, expansion plates resulted in higher inter-canine distances (MD 2.59 mm, 95% CI 2.18 to 3.01; 3 studies, 145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of Hyrax is probably effective for correcting posterior crossbite compared to observation (OR 48.02, 95% CI 21.58 to 106.87; 93 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Two of the studies focused on adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) and found that Hyrax increased the inter-molar distance compared with observation (MD 5.80, 95% CI 5.15 to 6.45; 2 studies, 72 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Intervention A versus intervention B When comparing quad-helix with expansion plates in children, quad-helix was more effective for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 3 studies, 151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), final inter-molar distance (MD 1.48 mm, 95% CI 0.91 mm to 2.04 mm; 3 studies, 151 participants; high-certainty evidence), inter-canine distance (0.59 mm higher (95% CI 0.09 mm  to 1.08 mm; 3 studies, 151 participants; low-certainty evidence) and length of treatment (MD -3.15 months, 95% CI -4.04 to -2.25; 3 studies, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax and Haas for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.18; 3 studies, 83 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.15 mm, 95% CI -0.86 mm to 0.56 mm; 2 studies of adolescents, 46 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax and tooth-bone-borne expansion for crossbite correction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 120 participants; low-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.66 mm, 95% CI -1.36 mm to 0.04 mm; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 65 participants; low-certainty evidence).  There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax with bone-borne expansion for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; I² = 0%; 2 studies of adolescents, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.14 mm, 95% CI -0.85 mm to 0.57 mm; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For children in the early mixed dentition stage (age 7 to 11 years old), quad-helix and expansion plates are more beneficial than no treatment for correcting posterior crossbites. Expansion plates also increase the inter-canine distance. Quad-helix is more effective than expansion plates for correcting posterior crossbite and increasing inter-molar distance. Treatment duration is shorter with quad-helix than expansion plates. For adolescents in permanent dentition (age 12 to 16 years old), Hyrax and Haas are similar for posterior crossbite correction and increasing the inter-molar distance. The remaining evidence was insufficient to draw any robust conclusions for the efficacy of posterior crossbite correction.

The perceptions of undertaking a higher degree alongside orthodontic speciality training: a cross-sectional survey of British Orthodontic Society members.

Introduction In the UK, orthodontic speciality training takes place over three years full-time. In addition to the clinical training, there is an expectation that trainees undertake a higher degree. Currently, there is little evidence regarding the impact of undertaking a higher degree on specialist orthodontists.Aims Investigate UK orthodontists' perceptions of undertaking a higher degree alongside speciality training.Materials and methods A cross-sectional research study involving the distribution of an anonymous, descriptive, online, questionnaire-based survey between May and June 2021 via the British Orthodontic Society. Data were obtained in relation to the impact of undertaking a higher degree on the completion of speciality training, research skills, delivery of patient care and career opportunities.Results In total, 166 questionnaires were completed (approximately 13.3% response rate). Most respondents 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that undertaking a higher degree had improved their scientific (77.1%) and critical appraisal skills (80.7%), job prospects (60.2%) and career opportunities (63.9%). Most respondents felt the benefits of the higher degree outweighed the associated costs (65.1%) and was a worthwhile component of training (69.3%).Conclusions Specialist orthodontists place a high value on undertaking a higher degree. The results of this questionnaire should be of importance to stakeholders involved in the development of the orthodontic curriculum.

Management of patients with hypodontia: What has changed?

This review will consider changes in clinical practice associated with the management of patients with missing teeth and briefly review the evidence base that underpins what we do for them.

Orthodontic referral management systems: Do they make a difference?

AIMS: To assess the performance of the referral management system (RMS) compared to a previous paper-based referral system and to determine whether referrals reflected the patients' malocclusion and met current guidelines. DESIGN: Three-cycle audit. SETTING: Orthodontic Department, Liverpool University Dental Hospital, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive new orthodontic patient referrals. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from orthodontic referral letters and new patient clinic proformas (2016-2017). Cycle 1 assessed the original paper-based referral form, Cycle 2 assessed the first RMS online form and Cycle 3 assessed a modified RMS form. RESULTS: Cycles 1, 2 and 3 audited 83, 84 and 81 referrals, respectively. Agreement between the reason for referral and the new patient clinic findings was moderate for Cycles 1 and 3 (Kappa = 0.47 and 0.60, respectively) and fair for Cycle 2 (Kappa = 0.40). In Cycles 1, 2 and 3, the proportion of new patients appropriate for hospital orthodontic care reduced from 52% to 51% and 40%, respectively. None of the three cycles reached the 90% target for compliance with current referral guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Cycle 3's RMS form gave a truer reflection of the patients' malocclusion but reduced the proportion of appropriate referrals. Further audit is required in this area to investigate the cost-effectiveness and clinical benefits of the RMS.

Comparison of statural height growth velocity at different cervical vertebral maturation stages.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge of a patient's stage of growth and development plays a vital role in diagnosis, treatment planning, results, and stability of the outcome. Cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) predicts the stage of growth and development, but its validity has only been investigated restrospectively, using historic samples. Our objective was to assess prospectively whether a correlation exists between CVM stage and statural height growth velocity. METHODS: Participants were aged between 8 and 18 years and of both sexes. Standing height was measured every 6 weeks with participants barefoot and in natural head position. CVM stage was assessed from lateral cephalograms taken at the start of treatment. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of CVM staging and statural height measurements were assessed using the Cohen weighted kappa, percentage of agreement, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots, respectively. Analysis of variance was used to test for statistically significant differences between growth velocities at the CVM stages. RESULTS: We analyzed 108 participants. The peak in statural height growth velocity occurred at CVM stage 3 (P = 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in the mean annualized growth velocity between all CVM stages except stages 2 and 4. Girls had their peak pubertal growth spurt an average of 1.2 years earlier than did boys. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is a significant relationship between CVM stage and statural height velocity.