Use of Different Cleaning Methods for Removable Orthodontic Appliances: A Questionnaire Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study is to assess the means and methods being suggested by Greek orthodontists to their patients for cleaning their removable devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted among a total of 418 Greek orthodontists found from the registry of orthodontists in Greece. The clinicians were asked about the means and methods of daily cleaning they usually advise their patients for removable appliances. Furthermore, the questionnaire included questions related to possible complications of these devices and data about the use and type of applied devices. RESULTS: From 418 Greek orthodontists, 279 filled the questionnaire and participated in this study. All but one reported that they use removable appliances in their practice for patients of almost any age. All orthodontists recommend routine manual toothbrushing, but the majority of them also suggest at the same time other oral hygiene aids complementary to brushing, such as immersion in denture cleaners (70.06%), in disinfecting solutions (12.73%) and in vinegar (36.94%). Some 15% of all the practitioners advise the use of ultrasonic instruments for cleaning removable orthodontic appliances. At last, clinicians have faced complications from the use of removable devices in the oral cavity at a statistically significant percentage. The most usual is trauma of the mucosa, mycosis and hyperplasia. CONCLUSION: Greek orthodontists use removable orthodontic appliances, active or passive, in their practice. Brushing with a toothbrush and the use of cleaning products for removable prostheses are the preferred methods for cleaning removable orthodontic appliances regardless of the orthodontic specialty programme they had graduated from.

Highly cited orthodontic articles from 2000 to 2015.

INTRODUCTION: Identification of highly cited articles based on the h-index and its properties is important for the evaluation of the past, present, and future of any research discipline. In this study, we aimed to identify the h-classic articles in orthodontics. METHODS: One search on the Web of Science identified all articles from 2000 to 2015 in the 89 journals indexed by the 2015 InCites Journal Citation Reports in the scientific area "dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine." A second search was performed in the Web of Science using all mesh terms related to orthodontics. Then, we applied the h-classic method to select the recent articles with the greatest scientific impact in orthodontics. RESULTS: Eighty articles were considered as h-classic articles. They were published in 20 of the 89 dental journals of the 2015 InCites Journal Citation Reports list. Only 36 articles appeared in orthodontic journals: 23 in the American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics (28.8%), 7 in The Angle Orthodontist (8.8%), and 6 in European Journal of Orthodontics (7.5%). Thirty-eight articles originated from Europe, 28 from the Americas, and 14 from the Middle East and Asia. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of fundamental orthodontic research is published in nonorthodontic journals showing that our field is currently limited, and interactions with other research fields should be sought to increase orthodontic research importance and appeal.

Agenesis of maxillary lateral incisor and tooth replacement: cost-effectiveness of different treatment alternatives.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of five treatment alternatives for maxillary lateral incisor agenesis where space maintenance and tooth replacement are indicated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following treatment modalities were considered: single-tooth implant-supported crown, resin-bonded fixed partial denture (FPD), cantilever FPD, full-coverage FPD, and autotransplantation. The cost-effectiveness for each treatment modality was determined as the ratio of the outcome of each modality divided by the cost. Direct costs, clinical and laboratory, were calculated based on national fee schedules and converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity exchange rates. Outcomes were based on the most recently published long-term (10-year) survival rates. Sensitivity analyses were carried out, testing the robustness of the cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: The five treatment modalities ranked in the following order from most to least cost-effective: autotransplantation, cantilever FPDs, resin-bonded FPDs, single-tooth implants and implant-supported crowns, and full-coverage FPDs. Sensitivity analysis illustrated that the cost-effectiveness analysis was reliable in identifying autotransplantation as the most and full-coverage FPDs as the least cost-effective treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: When replacing a missing maxillary lateral incisor, the most costeffective, long-term treatment modality is autotransplantation, whereas the least cost-effective is full-coverage FPDs. However, factors such as patient age, the state of the dentition, occlusion, and tooth conservation should also influence the choice of restoration.