Five-year postretention outcomes of three retention methods--a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of three different retention strategies 5 years or more postretention. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, prospective, single-centre controlled trial. Forty-nine patients (33 girls and 16 boys) were randomly assigned to one of three retention methods during 2 years by picking a ballot shortly before start of retention treatment. Inclusion criteria were no previous orthodontics, permanent dentition, normal skeletal sagittal, vertical, and transversal relationships, Class I dental relationship, space deficiencies, treatment plan with extractions of four premolars followed by fixed straight-wire appliance. Maxillary and mandibular Little's irregularity index (LII), intercanine and intermolar width, arch length, and overbite/overjet were recorded in a blinded manner, altogether 10 measurements on each patient. Significant differences in means within groups assessed by t-test and between groups by one-way analysis of variance. INTERVENTIONS: Retention methods: removable vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) covering the palate and the maxillary anterior teeth from canine-to-canine and bonded canine-to-canine retainer in the lower arch (group V-CTC); maxillary VFR combined with stripping of the lower anterior teeth (group V-S); and prefabricated positioner (group P). RESULTS: Maxillary mean LII ranged from 1.8 to 2.6mm, mean intercanine width 33.6-35.3mm with a significant difference between groups V-S and P, mean intermolar width 46.8-47.4mm and mean arch length 21.8-22.8mm. Mandibular mean LII ranged from 2.0 to 3.4mm with a significant difference between groups V-S and P, mean intercanine width from 25.4 to 26.6mm, mean intermolar width from 40.8 to 40.9mm and mean arch length from 16.9 to 17.3mm. Mean overbite ranged from 1.8 to 2.7mm and mean overjet from 3.7 to 4.1mm. LIMITATIONS: A single centre study could be less generalizable. CONCLUSIONS: The three retention methods disclosed equally favourable clinical results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was not registered. PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.

A cost-minimization analysis of an RCT of three retention methods.

BACKGROUND: There are few cost evaluation studies of orthodontic retention treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the costs in a randomized controlled trial of three retention methods during 2 years of retention treatment. MATERIALS/METHODS: To determine which alternative has the lower cost, a cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was undertaken, based on that the outcome of the treatment alternatives was equivalent. The study comprised 75 patients in 3 groups consisting of 25 each. The first group had a vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) in the maxilla and a cuspid retainer in the mandible (group V-CTC), the second group had a VFR in the maxilla combined with stripping of the incisors and cuspids in the mandible (group V-S), and the third group had a prefabricated positioner (group P). Direct cost (premises, staff salaries, material and laboratory costs) and indirect costs (loss of time at school) were calculated. Societal costs were defined as the sum of direct and indirect costs. RESULTS: The societal costs/patient for scheduled appointments for 2 years of retention treatment in group V-CTC were €497, group V-S €451 and group P €420. Societal costs for unscheduled appointments in group V-CTC were €807 and in group V-S €303. In group P, there were no unscheduled appointments. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: After 2 years of retention in compliant patients, the cuspid retainer was the least cost-effective retention appliance. The CMA showed that for a clinically similar result, there were differences in societal costs, but treatment decisions should always be performed on an individual basis.

A systematic review of Swedish research in orthodontics during the past decade.

The aims of this systematic review were to identify the study designs and topics of Swedish orthodontic articles, to elucidate their international position, and to verify in which scientific journals the articles had been published in the past decade. A search of the Medline database for papers published between 1992 and 2002 was made using the Medical Search Heading terms 'orthodontics', 'malocclusion', 'cephalometry', and 'facial bones and growth'. Two independent reviewers selected the articles of Swedish origin and categorized each article according to research design and principal topic. Overall, 15,571 articles in orthodontic research were found, and the Swedish contribution was 1.9% with the majority of these (71.5%) being submitted by universities. Most of the Swedish articles (84.5%) had been published in 10 journals and many high-quality studies with orthodontic interest were published in non-orthodontic journals with higher impact factor scores than the orthodontic journals. Every second study was prospective, and of these, 15 (5.2% of all Swedish articles) were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It was found that nearly every third study, prospective as well as retrospective, was uncontrolled. The main classification was treatment studies (51.9%), followed by development (18.6%) and diagnostic information (10.7%) studies. Thus, the majority of the articles evaluated therapeutic interventions; however, although the RCT is the preferred study design in evaluation studies, few used this method. In an era focused on evidence-based medicine, studies with an RCT design will be the future challenge for research in the field of orthodontics.

Attitudes and satisfaction with dental appearance in young adults with and without malocclusion.

The aim of the study was to assess the quality of a Public Dental Service (PDS) system in Sweden with regard to the orthodontic care and to investigate the selection made for the consultation by the general practitioners (GPs) and by orthodontists of those patients with malocclusion. In the individuals leaving the PDS system, the residual need and demand for treatment due to malocclusions and satisfaction with and opinion of their teeth was assessed in orthodontically treated and untreated 19-year-olds. Altogether 121 19-year-olds were clinically investigated with respect to six defined malocclusion traits and given a questionnaire. The following results were found: Ten per cent of the 19-year-olds that had not had an orthodontic consultation showed a residual treatment need. One third of the individuals judged by the orthodontist not to need treatment and one third that had been treated by the GP showed a marked orthodontic treatment need at the age of 19 years. Twenty-two per cent of all 19-year-olds left the PDS with an orthodontic treatment need. Ninety-four per cent were satisfied with their teeth irrespective of malocclusion or not. Every second individual considered their teeth important for their self-esteem. It was concluded that 19-year-olds in general were satisfied with their dental appearance. Half of the registered residual need and demand for orthodontic treatment was not related to measurable malocclusions.

Outcome of orthodontic care in 19-year-olds attending the Public Dental Service in Sweden: residual need and demand for treatment.

The study analyses residual need and demand for orthodontic treatment in 19-year-olds attending the Swedish Public Dental Service (PDS). The general practitioners (GPs) had selected individuals for orthodontic specialist consultation and some were treated by GPs or specialists or not considered to be in need for treatment. Altogether 164 individuals were called for clinical investigation at the age of 19 years and also given a questionnaire asking for residual orthodontic treatment demand and satisfaction with information and orthodontic care. Ninety-one per cent of the individuals who had had an orthodontic consultation and 53 per cent of those who had not seen an orthodontist took part in the investigation. The study revealed that half of the 19-year-olds at the PDS clinic had received orthodontic consultations and one third had received orthodontic appliance treatment. Seven percent of the investigated individuals had a residual subjective demand for treatment. Several individuals with removable appliance treatment had overjet and deep bite and laterally forced cross-bite, but with little remaining subjective demand for treatment. Individuals with fixed appliance treatment showed few malocclusions. Nineteen-year-olds in general were uncertain about their present need for orthodontic treatment. The following conclusions were drawn: the total amount of orthodontic treatment in different areas in Sweden is comparable but the distribution between GP and specialist treatment differs. Interceptive treatment to reduce overjets seemed not successful. Fixed appliances seemed to reduce the majority of the malocclusion traits. The information given in connection with orthodontic consultation or treatment was clearly inadequate.