METHODS: Two sets of 3-dimensional facial photographs (1 male and 1 female) each comprised 7 images that showed different dentoskeletal relations (ie, Class I, bimaxillary protrusion, bimaxillary retrusion, maxillary protrusion, maxillary retrusion, mandibular protrusion, and mandibular retrusion). The sets of photographs were shown to 101 laypersons (age, 28.87 ± 6.22 years) and 60 patients seeking orthognathic treatment (age, 27.12 ± 6.07 years). They rated their esthetic perceptions of the photographs on the basis of a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 (very unattractive) to 100 (very attractive).
RESULTS: The dentoskeletal Class I facial profile was ranked as the most attractive profile. Female orthognathic judges selected the retrusive maxilla while male orthognathic judges and male and female laypersons ranked the mandibular protrusion profile as the least attractive profile for both females and males. A bimaxillary protrusive female profile was viewed as more attractive by the orthognathic male (P = 0.006) and female (P = 0.006) judges, compared with female layperson judges. After adjustment for age, no statistically significant interaction between sex and judges (P >0.10) for all VAS scores were detected. For the female bimaxillary protrusive profile, orthognathic patient judges assigned a mean VAS score of 9.174 points higher than layperson judges (95% confidence interval, 3.11-15.24; P = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: Dentoskeletal Class I facial profile was generally considered the most attractive profile in both sexes; male and female orthognathic patients preferred a bimaxillary protrusive female profile. A concave facial profile was perceived as least attractive in both sexes.
METHODS: Electronic database and hand search of English literature in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, and clinical trial.gov, with author clarification were performed. The selection criteria were randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing MOPs with conventional treatment involving both extraction and nonextraction. Cochrane's risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used for quality assessment. Studies were analyzed with chi-square-based Q statistic methods, I2 index, fixed-effects, and random-effects model. Quantitative analysis was done on homogenous studies using Review Manager.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included for the qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis of 2 homogenous studies indicated insignificant effect with MOPs (0.01 mm less OTM; 95% CI, 0.13-0.11; P = 0.83). No difference (P >0.05) was found in anchorage loss, root resorption, gingival recession, and pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of 2 low-risk of bias studies showed no effect with single application MOPs over a short observation period; however, the overall evidence was low. The quality of evidence for MOP side effects ranged from high to low. Future studies are suggested to investigate repeated MOPs effect over the entire treatment duration for different models of OTM and its related biological changes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CDR42019118642.
METHODS: Sixteen New Zealand white rabbits, 20 to 24 weeks old, were randomly divided into 4 experimental groups. Modified hyrax expanders were placed across their interfrontal sutures and secured with miniscrew implants located bilaterally in the frontal bone. The hyrax appliances were activated as follows: group 1 (control), 0.5-mm per day expansion for 12 days; group 2, 1-mm instant expansion followed by 0.5 mm per day for 10 days; group 3, 2.5-mm instant expansion followed by 0.5 mm per day for 7 days, and group 4, 4-mm instant expansion followed by 0.5 mm per day for 4 days. After 6 weeks of retention, sutural separation and sutural bone modeling were assessed by microcomputed tomography and quantified. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests and the Spearman rho correlation (P <0.05).
RESULTS: Median amounts of sutural separation ranged from 2.84 to 4.41 mm for groups 1 and 4, respectively. Median bone volume fraction ranged from 59.96% to 69.15% for groups 4 and 3, respectively. A significant correlation (r = 0.970; P <0.01) was observed between the amounts of instant expansion and sutural separation.
CONCLUSIONS: Pending histologic verifications, our findings suggest that the protocol involving 2.5 mm of instant expansion followed by 0.5 mm per day for 7 days is optimal for accelerated sutural expansion. When 4 mm of instant expansion was used, the sutural bone volume fraction was decreased.
METHODS: Thirty adult participants (25 females and 5 males; mean age, 22.66 ± 3.27 years) with moderate upper labial segment crowding were randomly assigned into intervention and control groups using block randomization. All participants had first premolar extractions, bonded conventional fixed appliances, and 0.014-in, followed by 0.018-in nickel-titanium archwire placement for initial alignment. The intervention group received a 3-mm deep MOPs procedure under local anesthesia using a Propel device (Propel Ortho Singapore, Pte, Ltd, Winstedt Rd, Singapore) on the labial attached gingivae of maxillary incisors at monthly visits until complete alignment. Little's irregularity index was used to assess the overall changes and measure the change of tooth alignment of the 6 maxillary anterior teeth. Assessor blinding was employed.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the median overall alignment duration between MOPs and control groups (139 days [95% confidence interval, 115.32-161.83] vs 143 days [95% confidence interval, 107.12-179.74]; hazard ratio, 0.829; P = 0.467). The MOPs procedure had no significant effect on the alignment duration (P = 0.657) and no overall significant difference in alignment improvement percentage among 2 groups on the basis of time (F = 2.53; P = 0.124). No harm was encountered.
CONCLUSIONS: The application of MOPs is no more effective in accelerating initial orthodontic alignment than conventional treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at the ISRCTN registry with the study ID ISRCTN15080404.
PROTOCOL: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN15080404.
FUNDING: This work was supported by the Postgraduate Trust Fund, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA.
METHODS: YouTube videos were systematically acquired with 4 search terms. The top 50 videos per search term by the number of views were stored in a YouTube account. A set of inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, videos were assessed for viewing characteristics, a 4-point scoring system (0-3) was applied to evaluate QOI in 10 predetermined domains, and a 3-point scoring system (0-2) was applied to evaluate COI. Descriptive statistical analyses and intrarater and interrater reliability tests were performed.
RESULTS: Strong intrarater and interrater reliability scores were observed. Sixty-three videos from the top 58 most-viewed DPs were viewed 1,395,471 times (range, 414-124,939). Most DPs originated from the United States (20%), and orthodontists (62%) uploaded most of the videos. The mean number of reported domains was 2.03 ± 2.40 (out of 10). The mean overall QOI score per domain was 0.36 ± 0.79 (out of 3). The "Placement of miniscrews" domain scored highest (1.23 ± 0.75). The "Cost of miniscrews placement" domain scored the lowest (0.03 ± 0.25). The mean overall QOI score per DP was 3.59 ± 5.64 (out of 30). The COI in 32 videos was immeasurable, and only 2 avoided using technical words.
CONCLUSIONS: The QOI related to temporary anchorage devices contained within videos provided by DPs through the YouTube Web site is deficient, particularly in the cost of placement. Orthodontists should be aware of the importance of YouTube as an information resource and ensure that videos related to temporary anchorage devices contain comprehensive and evidence-based information.
METHODS: The Z Printer 450 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC) reprinted 10 sets of models for each category of crowding (mild, moderate, and severe) scanned using a structured-light scanner (Maestro 3D, AGE Solutions, Pisa, Italy). Stone and RP models were measured using digital calipers for tooth sizes in the mesiodistal, buccolingual, and crown height planes and for arch dimension measurements. Bland-Altman and paired t test analyses were used to assess agreement and accuracy. Clinical significance was set at ±0.50 mm.
RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis showed the mean bias of measurements between the models to be within ±0.15 mm (SD, ±0.40 mm), but the 95% limits of agreement exceeded the cutoff point of ±0.50 mm (lower range, -0.81 to -0.41 mm; upper range, 0.34 to 0.76 mm). Paired t tests showed statistically significant differences for all planes in all categories of crowding except for crown height in the moderate crowding group and arch dimensions in the mild and moderate crowding groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The rapid prototyping models were not clinically comparable with conventional stone models regardless of the degree of crowding.
METHODS: Twenty-two patients (11 male, 11 female; mean age, 19.8 ± 3.1 years) with Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion were recruited for this split-mouth clinical trial; they required extraction of maxillary first premolars bilaterally. After leveling and alignment with self-ligating brackets (SmartClip SL3; 3M Unitek, St Paul, Minn), a 150-g force was applied to retract the canines bilaterally using 6-mm nickel-titanium closed-coil springs on 0.019 x 0.025-in stainless steel archwires. A gallium-aluminum-arsenic diode laser (iLas; Biolase, Irvine, Calif) with a wavelength of 940 nm in a continuous mode (energy density, 7.5 J/cm2/point; diameter of optical fiber tip, 0.04 cm2) was applied at 5 points buccally and palatally around the canine roots on the experimental side; the other side was designated as the placebo. Laser irradiation was applied at baseline and then repeated after 3 weeks for 2 more consecutive follow-up visits. Questionnaires based on the numeric rating scale were given to the patients to record their pain intensity for 1 week. Impressions were made at each visit before the application of irradiation at baseline and the 3 visits. Models were scanned with a CAD/CAM scanner (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland).
RESULTS: Canine retraction was significantly greater (1.60 ± 0.38 mm) on the experimental side compared with the placebo side (0.79 ± 0.35 mm) (P <0.05). Pain was significantly less on the experimental side only on the first day after application of LLLI and at the second visit (1.4 ± 0.82 and 1.4 ± 0.64) compared with the placebo sides (2.2 ± 0.41 and 2.4 ± 1.53).
CONCLUSIONS: Low-level laser irradiation applied at 3-week intervals can accelerate orthodontic tooth movement and reduce the pain associated with it.