Sofia Petrén

A systematic review concerning early orthodontic treatment of unilateral posterior crossbite.

The aim of this study was to assess the orthodontic treatment effects on unilateral posterior crossbite in the primary and early mixed dentition by systematically reviewing the literature. A literature search was performed by applying the Medline database (Entrez PubMed) and covering the period from January 1966 to October 2002. The inclusion criteria were primary and early mixed dentition with unilateral posterior crossbite, randomized controlled trials (RCT), prospective and retrospective studies with concurrent untreated as well as normal controls, and clinical trials comparing at least two treatment strategies without any untreated or normal group involved. Two reviewers extracted the data independently and also assessed the quality of the studies. The search strategy resulted in 1001 articles, and 12 met the inclusion criteria. Two RCTs of early treatment of crossbite have been performed, and these two studies support grinding as treatment in the primary dentition. There is no scientific evidence available to show which of the treatment modalities, grinding, Quad-helix, expansion plates, or rapid maxillary expansion, is the most effective. Most of the studies have serious problems of lack of power because of small sample size, bias and confounding variables, lack of method error analysis, blinding in measurements, and deficient or lack of statistical methods. To obtain reliable scientific evidence, better-controlled RCTs with sufficient sample sizes are needed to determine which treatment is the most effective for early correction of unilateral posterior crossbite. Future studies should also include assessments of long-term stability as well as analysis of costs and side effects of the interventions.

Correction of unilateral posterior crossbite in the mixed dentition: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION From an evidence-based point of view, correction of posterior crossbite is not sufficiently evaluated. Thus, the aims of this study were to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of different treatment strategies to correct unilateral posterior crossbite in the mixed dentition by using the randomized clinical trial methodology with an untreated control group. METHODS Sixty patients participated in the study. All met the following inclusion criteria: mixed dentition, unilateral posterior crossbite, no sucking habits, and no previous orthodontic treatment. The patients were randomized into 4 groups: quad-helix, expansion plate, composite onlay, and untreated control. The success rates, amounts of maxillary and mandibular expansion, and treatment times were registered. RESULTS The quad-helix appliance was superior to the expansion plate in success rate and treatment time. Treatment with the expansion plate was unsuccessful in one third of the subjects. Crossbite correction with composite onlay in the mixed dentition was ineffective, and spontaneous correction in the mixed dentition did not occur. CONCLUSIONS If unilateral posterior crossbite is planned to be corrected in the mixed dentition, this study clearly confirmed that treatment with the quad-helix is an appropriate and successful method.

Stability of unilateral posterior crossbite correction in the mixed dentition: A randomized clinical trial with a 3-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION The long-term stability of posterior crossbite correction in the mixed dentition has not been sufficiently evaluated. Our aim was to compare long-term outcomes in patients with crossbite correction by using matched controls with normal occlusion. METHODS After 35 patients were treated for crossbite with a quad-helix or an expansion plate, we used randomized controlled trial methodology to follow them for 3 years posttreatment. All had fulfilled our pretreatment criteria: mixed dentition, unilateral posterior crossbite, no sucking habits, and no previous orthodontic treatment. Transverse relationships, maxillary and mandibular widths, overbite, overjet, arch lengths, and midlines were registered on the study models immediately before and after treatment and at the follow-up 3 years after treatment. The matched control group comprised 20 subjects with normal occlusion and was compared with the first and last registrations for the treated groups. RESULTS At follow-up, changes in the treatment groups were equal and stable. The changes were comparable with the control group. All other changes were minor and had no clinical implications. The long-term effect of crossbite correction on midline deviation was unpredictable. CONCLUSIONS If crossbite is successfully corrected by the quad-helix appliance or the expansion plate, similar long-term stability is achieved. However, in treated patients, mean maxillary widths never reached those of normal control subjects.

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 Littles 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.

Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in accelerating tooth movement, preventing relapse and managing acute pain during orthodontic treatment in humans : a systematic review

BackgroundRecently low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been proposed to improve orthodontic treatment. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate the scientific evidence to support applications of LLLT: (a) to accelerate tooth movement, (b) to prevent orthodontic relapse and (c) to modulate acute pain, during treatment with fixed appliances in children and young adults.MethodsTo ensure a systematic literature approach, this systematic review was conducted to Goodman’s four step model. Three databases were searched (Medline, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register and Scitation), using predetermined search terms. The quality of evidence was rated according to the GRADE system.ResultsThe search identified 244 articles, 16 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria: three on acceleration of tooth movement by LLLT and 13 on LLLT modulation of acute pain. No study on LLLT for prevention of relapse was identified. The selected studies reported promising results for LLLT; elevated acceleration of tooth movement and lower pain scores, than controls. With respect to method, there were wide variations in type of laser techniques.ConclusionsThe quality of evidence supporting LLLT to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement is very low and low with respect to modulate acute pain. No studies met the inclusion criteria for evaluating LLLT to limit relapse. The results highlight the need for high quality research, with consistency in study design, to determine whether LLLT can enhance fixed appliance treatment in children and young adults.

Early correction of posterior crossbite--a cost-minimization analysis.

There are few cost evaluation studies of orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the costs of correcting posterior crossbites with Quad Helix (QH) or expansion plates (EPs) and to relate the costs to the effects. To determine which alternative has the lower cost, a cost-minimization analysis was undertaken, based on that the outcome of the treatment alternatives is identical. The study comprised 40 subjects in the mixed dentition, who had undergone treatment for unilateral posterior crossbite: 20 with QH and 20 with EPs. Duration of treatment, number of appointments, broken appointments, and cancellations were registered. Direct costs (for the premises, staff salaries, material and laboratory costs) and indirect costs (loss of income due to parents assumed absence from work) were calculated and evaluated for successful treatment alone, for successful and unsuccessful treatment and re-treatment when required. The QH had significantly lower direct and indirect costs, with fewer failures requiring re-treatment. Even the costs for successful cases only were significantly lower in the QH than in the EP group. The results clearly show that in terms of cost-minimization, QH is the preferred method for correcting posterior crossbite in the mixed dentition.

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.

Health economic evaluations in orthodontics: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND Economic evaluation is assuming increasing importance as an integral component of health services research. AIM To conduct a systematic review of the literature and assess the evidence from studies presenting orthodontic treatment outcomes and the related costs. MATERIALS/METHODS The literature review was conducted in four steps, according to Goodmans model, in order to identify all studies evaluating economic aspects of orthodontic interventions. The search covered the databases Medline, Cinahl, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and SCOPUS, for the period from 1966 to September 2014. The inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing at least two different orthodontic interventions, evaluation of both economic and orthodontic outcomes, and study populations of all ages. The quality of each included study was assessed as limited, moderate, or high. The overall evidence was assessed according to the GRADE system (The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS The applied terms for searches yielded 1838 studies, of which 989 were excluded as duplicates. Application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria identified 26 eligible studies for which the full-text versions were retrieved and scrutinized. At the final analysis, eight studies remained. Three studies were based on cost-effectiveness analyses and the other five on cost-minimization analysis. Two of the cost-minimization studies included a societal perspective, i.e. the sum of direct and indirect costs. The aims of most of the studies varied widely and of studies comparing equivalent treatment methods, few were of sufficiently high study quality. Thus, the literature to date provides an inadequate evidence base for economic aspects of orthodontic treatment. CONCLUSION This systematic review disclosed that few orthodontic studies have presented both economic and clinical outcomes. There is currently insufficient evidence available about the health economics of orthodontic interventions. Further investigation is warranted.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of anchorage reinforcement with miniscrews and molar blocks in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE To analyse cost-effectiveness of anchorage reinforcement with buccal miniscrews and with molar blocks. We hypothesized that anchorage with miniscrews is more cost-effective than anchorage with molar blocks. TRIAL DESIGN A single-centre, two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial. METHODS Adolescents (age 11-19 years) in need of treatment with fixed appliance, premolar extractions, and en masse retraction were recruited from one Public Dental Health specialist centre. The intervention arm received anchorage reinforcement with buccal miniscrews during space closure. The active comparator received anchorage reinforcement with molar blocks during levelling/alignment and space closure. The primary outcome measure was societal costs defined as the sum of direct and indirect costs. Randomization was conducted as simple randomization stratified on gender. The patients, caregivers, and outcome assessors were not blinded. RESULTS Eighty patients were randomized into two groups. The trial is completed. All patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median societal costs for the miniscrew group were €4681 and for the molar block group were €3609. The median of the difference was €825 (95% confidence interval (CI) 431-1267). This difference was mainly caused by significantly higher direct costs consisting of material and chair time costs. Differences in chair time costs were related to longer treatment duration. No serious harms were detected, one screw fractured during insertion and three screws were lost during treatment. GENERALIZABILITY AND LIMITATIONS The monetary variables are calculated based on a number of local factors and assumptions and cannot necessarily be transferred to other countries. Variables such as chair time, number of appointments, and treatment duration are generalizable. Owing to the study protocol, the benefit of miniscrews as a stable anchorage has not been fully utilized. CONCLUSIONS When only moderate anchorage reinforcement is needed, miniscrews are less cost-effective than molar blocks. The initial hypothesis was rejected. Miniscrews provide better anchorage reinforcement at a higher price. They should be used in cases where anchorage loss cannot be accepted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT02644811.