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.
METHODS: Patients in the permanent dentition requiring maxillary and mandibular fixed orthodontic treatment with a preadjusted edgewise appliance were eligible for inclusion. Patients attending 4 hospital departments (United Kingdom and Italy) were randomly allocated to 1 of 4 treatment interventions: (1) BioCosmetic (Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany), 0.017 in; (2) Titanol (Forestadent), 0.016 in; (3) TP Aesthetic (TP Orthodontics, La Porte, Ind), 0.014 in; and (4) Tooth Tone (Ortho Organizers, Calsbad, Calif) 0.016 in. Block randomization with block sizes of 4 and 8 was used to ensure an allocation ratio of 1:1:1:1. The primary outcome was alignment efficiency determined by the reduction in Little's irregularity index (mm). Secondary outcomes were color change using the Commission Internationale de L'Eclairage L*a*b* system and percentage of coating loss. Blinding was only applicable to outcome assessment of alignment efficiency. Regression models with Sidak's multiple comparison of means were used to analyze the data.
RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients (300 dental arches) were allocated to the treatment interventions, including 61 male and 89 female subjects with a mean age of 16.60 years. The average duration of follow-up was 63.65 days. Baseline characteristics for the archwire groups were similar. One patient was lost to follow-up. Five percent (n = 15) of the archwires fractured: BioCosmetic, 5.3% (n = 4); Titanol, 6.8% (n = 5); TP Aesthetic, 5.3% (n = 4); and Tooth Tone, 2.7% (n = 2). We analyzed 283 dental arches for alignment efficiency. There was no statistically significant difference for mean reduction in irregularity between the archwire groups (P = 0.627): BioCosmetic (n = 71), 3.86 mm (95% CI, 3.31-4.41); Titanol (n = 69), 4.51 mm (95% CI, 4.00-5.02); TP Aesthetic (n = 71), 4.13 mm (95% CI, 3.49-4.78); and Tooth Tone (n = 72), 4.21 mm (95% CI, 3.89-4.46). There was a statistically significant difference between archwire groups for color change (P = 0.001) and percentage of coating loss (P = 0.001), with BioCosmetic performing best in both parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between the archwires for alignment efficiency. BioCosmetic performed statistically significantly better than did the other groups for both color change and coating loss.
REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with the East Midlands NHS Research Ethics Committee (12/EM/0190).
PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.
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.