A multicentre audit to assess the effectiveness of the British Orthodontic Society 'Hold that Smile' retainer videos.

INTRODUCTION: Retention is a crucial part of orthodontic treatment; however, patients often do not wear their retainers as advised. The British Orthodontic Society developed the 'Hold that Smile' campaign in 2017, to improve patient knowledge about retention. Information is provided in two formats: a cartoon and a conventional film. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients find the 'Hold that Smile' videos useful and whether they improved patients' intended retainer wear. The gold standard was that 90% of patients should intend to wear their retainers in the long term after watching the videos. DESIGN: National multicentre audit. SETTING: Nine units in the UK. METHODS: Patients aged ⩾ 10 years, in fixed appliances or retention, watched the retainer videos and then completed a questionnaire that was designed specifically for this audit. Each unit collected data for approximately 30 patients. RESULTS: Data were collected for 278 patients in total. The average age was 17.9 years; 64.4% of patients were female and 35.6% were male. Most patients (86.3%) watched both videos and, of these, 44.1% preferred the film, 31.3% preferred the cartoon and 24.6% had no preference. The majority of patients (81.3%) felt that the film provided them with new information, compared with a lower percentage (48.5%) for the cartoon. More patients said they would recommend the film (76.3%) compared with the cartoon (63.3%). Before watching the videos, 77.0% of patients felt they knew about long-term retainer wear and 74.3% of those intended to wear their retainers in the long term. After watching the videos, 96.4% of all patients thought they would now wear their retainers long term. CONCLUSION: After watching the videos, there was a notable increase in the number of patients planning to wear their retainers long term and the gold standard was met. Therefore, these videos may be beneficial in improving understanding and compliance with retention.

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. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2003. A new full search was conducted on 26 September 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane Review remain the same. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 September 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. 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 review authors. 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 cured 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. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence on which to make a clinical decision of the type of orthodontic adhesive to use.

Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being glued to the teeth so that they do not become detached during treatment. Brackets (metal squares) are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round each tooth) are more commonly used. Orthodontic tubes (stainless steel tubes that allow wires to pass through them), are typically welded to bands but they may also be glued directly (bonded) to molars. Failure of brackets, bands and bonded molar tubes slows down the progress of treatment with a fixed appliance. It can also be costly in terms of clinical time, materials and time lost from education/work for the patient. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2011. A new full search was conducted on 15 February 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane review remain the same. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes, and the relative effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes versus adhesives used to attach bands, during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the tubes (or bands) come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the bonded (or banded) teeth against decay. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 February 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 February 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 February 2017). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes, bonded to first or second permanent molars. Trials which compared any type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (stainless steel or titanium) with any other adhesive, were included.Trials were also included where:(1) a tube was bonded to a molar tooth on one side of an arch and a band cemented to the same tooth type on the opposite side of the same arch;(2) molar tubes had been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The selection of papers, decision about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%).One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions.

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 METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. 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.

Early class III protraction facemask treatment reduces the need for orthognathic surgery: a multi-centre, two-arm parallel randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether patients who had received early class III protraction facemask treatment were less likely to need orthognathic surgery compared with untreated controls. This paper is a 6-year follow-up of a previous clinical trial. DESIGN: Multi-centre 2-arm parallel randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Eight United Kingdom hospital orthodontic departments. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy three 7- to 9-year-old children. METHOD: Patients were randomly allocated, stratified for gender, into an early class III protraction facemask group (PFG) (n = 35) and a control/no treatment group (CG) (n = 38). The primary outcome, need for orthognathic surgery was assessed by panel consensus. Secondary outcomes were changed in skeletal pattern, overjet, Peer Assessment Rating (PAR), self-esteem and the oral aesthetic impact of malocclusion. The data were compared between baseline (DC1) and 6-year follow-up (DC4). A per-protocol analysis was carried out with n = 32 in the CG and n = 33 in the PFG. RESULTS: Thirty six percent of the PFG needed orthognathic surgery, compared with 66% of the CG (P = 0.027). The odds of needing surgery was 3.5 times more likely when protraction facemask treatment was not used (odds ratio = 3.34 95% CI 1.21-9.24). The PFG exhibited a clockwise rotation and the CG an anti-clockwise rotation in the maxilla (regression coefficient 8.24 (SE 0.75); 95% CI 6.73-9.75; P < 0.001) and the mandible (regression coefficient 6.72 (SE 0.73); 95% CI 5.27-8.18; P < 0.001). Sixty eight per cent of the PFG maintained a positive overjet at 6-year follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences between the PFG and CG for skeletal/occlusal improvement, self-esteem or oral aesthetic impact. CONCLUSIONS: Early class III protraction facemask treatment reduces the need for orthognathic surgery. However, this effect cannot be explained by the maintenance of skeletal cephalometric change.

Is early Class III protraction facemask treatment effective? A multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 3-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of early class III protraction facemask treatment in children under 10 years of age at 3-year follow-up. DESIGN: Multicentre randomized controlled trial. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Seventy-three patients were randomly allocated, stratified for gender, into early class III protraction facemask group (PFG) (n = 35) and a control/no treatment group (CG) (n = 38). OUTCOMES: Dentofacial changes were assessed from lateral cephalograms and occlusal changes using the peer assessment rating (PAR). Self-esteem was assessed using the Piers-Harris children's self-concept scale, and the psychosocial impact of malocclusion with oral aesthetic subjective impact score (OASIS) questionnaire. Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) signs and symptoms were also recorded. The time points for data collection were at registration (DC1), 15 months later (DC2) and 3 years post-registration (DC3). RESULTS: The following mean skeletal and occlusal changes occurred from the class III starting point to DC3 (3-year follow-up): SNA, PFG moved forwards +2·3° (CG forward +1·6°; P = 0·14); SNB, PFG moved forwards +0·8° (CG forward +1·5°, P = 0·26); ANB, PFG class III base improved +1·5° (CG stayed about the same at +0·1°; P = 0·001). This contributed to an overall difference in ANB between PFG and CG of +1·4° in favour of early protraction facemask treatment. The overjet was still improved by +3·6 mm in the PFG and changed a small amount +1·1 mm in the CG (P = 0·001). A 21% improvement in PAR was shown in the PFG and the CG worsened by 8·4% (P = 0·02). There was no increase in self-esteem (Piers-Harris score) for PFG compared with the CG (P = 0·56) and no statistically significant difference in the impact of malocclusion (OASIS) between groups in terms of the changes from DC1 to DC3 (P = 0·18). TMJ signs and symptoms were very low at DC1 and DC3. CONCLUSIONS: The favourable effect of early class III protraction facemask treatment undertaken in patients under 10 years of age, is maintained at 3-year follow-up in terms of ANB, overjet and % PAR improvement. The direct protraction treatment effect at SNA is still favourable although not statistically significantly better than the CG. Seventy per cent of patients in PFG had maintained a positive overjet which we have defined as ongoing treatment success. Early protraction facemask treatment does not seem to influence self-esteem or reduce the patient's personal impact of their malocclusion at 3-year follow-up.

Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being glued to the teeth so that they do not become detached during treatment. Brackets (metal squares) are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round each tooth) are more commonly used. Orthodontic tubes (stainless steel tubes that allow wires to pass through them), are typically welded to bands but they may also be glued directly (bonded) to molars. Failure of brackets, bands and bonded molar tubes slows down the progress of treatment with a fixed appliance. It can also be costly in terms of clinical time, materials and time lost from education/work for the patient. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes, and the relative effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes versus adhesives used to attach bands, during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the tubes (or bands) come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the bonded (or banded) teeth against decay. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 16 December 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 16 December 2010) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16 December 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes, bonded to first or second permanent molars. Trials which compared any type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (stainless steel or titanium) with any other adhesive, are included.Trials are also included where:(1) a tube is bonded to a molar tooth on one side of an arch and a band cemented to the same tooth type on the opposite side of the same arch; (2) molar tubes have been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The selection of papers, decision about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%).One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions.

Is early Class III protraction facemask treatment effective? A multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 15-month follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of early class III protraction facemask treatment in children under 10 years of age. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Eight UK hospital orthodontic units. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Seventy-three patients were randomly allocated, stratified for gender, into an early class III protraction facemask group (PFG) (n = 35) and a control/no treatment group (CG) (n = 38). OUTCOMES: Dentofacial changes from lateral cephalograms and occlusal changes using the peer assessment rating (PAR). Self-esteem was assessed using the Piers-Harris children's self-concept scale, and the psychosocial impact of malocclusion with an oral aesthetic subjective impact scores (OASIS) questionnaire. Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) signs and symptoms were also recorded. The time points for data collection were at registration (DC1) and 15 months later (DC2). RESULTS: The following mean skeletal and occlusal changes occurred from the class III starting point: SNA, PFG moved forwards 1.4 degrees (CG forward 0.3 degrees; P = 0.018); SNB, PFG moved backwards -0.7 degrees (CG forward 0.8 degrees; P<0.001); ANB, PFG class III base improved +2.1 degrees (CG worsened by -0.5 degrees; P<0.001). This contributed to an overall difference in ANB between PFG and CG of 2.6 degrees in favour of early protraction facemask treatment. The overjet improved +4.4 mm in the PFG and marginally changed +0.3 mm in the CG (P<0.001). A 32.2% improvement in PAR was shown in the PFG and the CG worsened by 8.6%. There was no increased self-esteem (Piers-Harris score) for treated children compared with controls (P = 0.22). However, there was a reduced impact of malocclusion (OASIS score) for the PFG compared with the CG (P = 0.003), suggesting treatment resulted in slightly less concern about the tooth appearance. TMJ signs and symptoms were very low at DC1 and DC2 and none were reported during active facemask treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Early class III orthopaedic treatment, with protraction facemask, in patients under 10 years of age, is skeletally and dentally effective in the short term and does not result in TMJ dysfunction. Seventy per cent of patients had successful treatment, defined as achieving a positive overjet. However, early treatment does not seem to confer a clinically significant psychosocial benefit.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA): a screening study to measure class II skeletal pattern, TMJ PDS and use of systemic corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVE: To screen patients with oligoarticular and polyarticular forms of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) to determine (i) the severity of their class II skeletal pattern; (ii) temporomandibular joint signs and symptoms and (iii) use of systemic corticosteroids. DESIGN: Cross-sectional screening. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Sixty-eight children with JIA aged between 9 and 16 years old who were screened at four regional treatment centres in the UK. METHOD: Patients were screened clinically and radiographically for the presence of class II skeletal pattern and temporomandibular (TMJ) pain dysfunction syndrome. In addition, the JIA sub-type and history of disease activity and medication were recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Class II skeletal pattern, TMJ signs and symptoms, use of systemic corticosteroids. RESULTS: The mean ANB values were 4.2 degrees (SD = 2.9 degrees) in the oligoarticular group and 5.1 degrees (SD = 3.8 degrees) in the polyarticular group. Just under one-third of children had a moderate or severe class II skeletal pattern and a further quarter of children had a mild class II skeletal pattern. Clinical signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint pain dysfunction syndrome were low (<20%), except for crepitus and click which affected between 24 and 40% of JIA children. Radiographically, 57% of oligoarticular and 77% of polyarticular cases exhibited condylar erosion. Use of systemic corticosteroids varied between centres, but overall, was prescribed more in polyarticular cases (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Just under one-third of oligoarticular and polyarticular JIA patients exhibited a moderate or severe class II skeletal pattern. It is, therefore, likely that any future clinical trial to investigate the effect of functional appliance treatment in JIA patients, will need multicentre co-operation to fulfil potential sample size requirements. Clinical signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint pain dysfunction syndrome were low except for crepitus and click. However, radiographic evidence of condylar erosion was high particularly in the polyarticular group. Use of systemic corticosteroids was prescribed more in polyarticular cases and this is likely to reflect the severity of the disease.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands. A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic databases, conference proceedings and the Internet were searched. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (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. All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment, and data extraction. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Comparisons were made between the main types of adhesive. RESULTS: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified, all 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; and one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass polyphosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies. Meta-analysis was not feasible. 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.