South European Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research (SEJODR)

Assessment of the third finger middle phalanx maturation stages: A study of repeatability and diagnostic agreement

Giuseppe Perinetti — 2022-04-05

Data regarding the repeatability of the third finger middle phalanx maturation (MPM) method is still lacking. This study evaluated both the repeatability and diagnostic accuracy of the visual assessment of the MPM stages. Ten operators were given detailed instructions of the 5-stage MPM method and were asked to stage 80 cases, which included radiographs of equal number of all 5 MPM stages. Radiographs of the third finger were created by cropping hand-wrist radiographs of the Burlington Growth Study, ensuring the inclusion of several borderline cases. Such assessment was repeated in two sessions (T1 and T2) 4 weeks apart. For both the sessions, overall agreement and kappa coefficients were above 80% and 0.86, respectively. Most of the disagreements were seen for stages 1 and 2 with overall mean scores between the sessions being 29.7% and 39.4%, respectively. With only 4 exceptions (out of over 1,600 recordings), 1-stage apart disagreements were seen. Overall diagnostic accuracy ranged from 83.7% for MPM stage 2 (T1) to 99.3% for MPM stage 5 (T1). The MPM method has a satisfactorily level of repeatability and diagnostic agreement. About 1 case out of 5 remains misclassified, disagreement is mostly limited to 1-stage apart, with stage 2 being the most critical.

Comparative analysis of adhesive remnant index of orthodontic adhesive systems

Larissa Kelly Santos — 2022-04-05

Introduction: At the end of orthodontic treatment, enamel fractures and cracks are pointed out as potential risks related to the procedures for removing fixed appliances bonding to teeth. Aim of the study: The objective of the present study was to analyze comparatively residual adhesive index of different adhesive systems used in Orthodontics for bonding brackets on the dental surface. Materials and Methods: The present in vitro study was performed with 120 healthy human extracted premolars randomly divided into two groups to receive the bonding of steel and ceramic brackets. Then, the teeth were divided into six subgroups according to adhesive system used: G1: Orthocem®; G2: Orthocem® + Ambar universal® adhesive; G3: Orthobond Plus®; G4: Biofix®; G5: Transbond XT® and G6: Ortholink VLC®. The analysis of the residual adhesive index was performed using a microscope under 20x magnification after removing the brackets. Data were analyzed with Mann-Whitney test. The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results and Conclusions: The score of the most prevalent adhesive index in steel brackets group was 2, while in ceramic brackets group was 3. Comparatively, Orthobond Plus®, Biofix® and Ortholink VLC® showed better performance of adhesive remnant index than Orthocem® + Ambar® in steel brackets group. For ceramic brackets, Biofix® and Transbond XT® adhesives performed better than Orthobond Plus®.

Response to orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in adult patients compared to adolescents. A systematic review.

Marcial Guiñez — 2022-04-05

Objectives: This systematic review will seek to answer whether there are differences in the response to orthodontic treatment according to age, sex, and periodontal condition.

Data Sources: A qualitative systematic review was carried out between 2016 and March 2021 in the electronic databases of PubMed, EBSCO Host, ClínicalKey, and BVS, selecting studies in English and Spanish with a maximum age of 5 years. The study was carried out according to the PRISMA statement.

Data Selection: All the studies based on findings of orthodontic treatments in adult and adolescent human groups, healthy and/or with some conditions that may affect orthodontic treatment (periodontitis, postmenopausal) were included.

Data Extraction: Study selection and data extraction were undertaken independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. There was a high degree of inter-examiner agreement for the eligibility assessment of the included articles (κ = 0.8637). Two reviewers assessed the quality of the included studies using AMSTAR-2, Cochrane's RoB 2.0, ROBINS-I, and Tools for cross-sectional, case-control and case reports studies from The National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Results: The search strategy used provided 1,350 papers of which 18 were selected for this study. Only 1 study showed a low risk of bias and 10 studies showed a high risk of bias. Adults show a late response after orthodontic activation. Periodontal conditions show improvement when periodontal and orthodontic treatment are combined. The response to orthodontic treatment does not show significant differences between adolescents and adults, or between premenopausal and postmenopausal women.

Conclusions: The studies indicate that there is no difference in the response to orthodontic treatment according to age, sex, and periodontal condition, although there is great heterogeneity between the included studies and the majority present a high risk of bias, therefore the results must be carefully analyzed.