Initial orthodontic alignment effectiveness with self-ligating and conventional appliances: A network meta-analysis in practice

The Optimal Energy Density of Photobiomodulation Therapy in Decreasing Orthodontic-Related Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective: The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to explore the optimal energy density (ED) for relief of orthodontic-related pain by photobiomodulation therapy. Background: Orthodontic treatment corrects the deformity of teeth, dental arch, jaw, and face using various orthodontic devices under the action of biomechanics. Materials and methods: A computerized literature search was conducted within the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used photobiomodulation therapy to relieve pain during orthodontic treatment. Particular inclusion and exclusion criteria were connected to recognize relevant articles. The information was extricated autonomously by two reviewers, and a quality assessment was carried out by utilizing the Cochrane Collaboration "risk of bias" tool. The RevMan 5.4 software and STATA 15.0 were utilized for data analysis. Also, the NMA was performed with mvmeta commands in Stata (StataCorp, TX). Results: Of the 1024 recognized articles, 21 RCTs were at long last included. Within the risk-of-bias assessments, 2 studies displayed a high risk, 17 an unclear risk, and 2 a low risk. The global and local inconsistency of the NMA in 1 and 2 days was not significant; however, the NMA in 3 days showed a significant inconsistency. Laser with lower ED (0-10 J/cm²) appeared to be the most noteworthy possibility to become the optimal intervention, and it also had the highest mean rank in the rankogram and the biggest value of surface under the cumulative ranking in all three NMA structures. Conclusions: On account of the limited evidence of included trials, laser with lower ED (0-10 J/cm²) appeared to be more valid than the remaining treatment modalities (laser with higher ED, placebo, and control) for pain reduction in 1, 2, and 3 days after orthodontic procedures were applied. In the future, more high-quality research with consistency in research design is needed for further evaluation.

Factors influencing treatment efficiency

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this cohort study was to evaluate the effect of self-ligating brackets (SB) and other related factors that influence orthodontic treatment time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a two-armed prospective study. Consecutively treated patients who were recruited from a private practice were enrolled and asked to choose between SB and conventional brackets (CB). If the patient did not have a preference, that patient was randomly allocated. An identical archwire sequence was used, and all patients were treated by a single orthodontist. Treatment duration, number of bracket failures, poor oral hygiene, poor elastic wear, whether or not to orthodontic mini-implants (OMI) were used, OMI failure, extraction, American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index, and arch length discrepancy were measured and statistically analyzed using t-tests, correlation analysis, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Stepwise regression analysis was conducted to generate an equation to predict treatment duration.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients with an average age of 22.73 years were included. The average treatment duration was 28.63 months. ANCOVA showed no significant difference in treatment duration between CB and SB. Stepwise regression analysis could explain 64.6% of the variance in treatment duration using five variables.

CONCLUSIONS

SB did not exhibit a significant reduction in treatment time as compared with CB. Patient cooperation, extractions, and malocclusion severity had a significant impact on treatment duration.

Comparison of shear bond strength and ARI of four different adhesive systems used to bond molar tubes: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine and compare the shear bond strength and ARI score of one traditional etch-and-rinse adhesive system serving as control, with those of two other all-in-one adhesives but with enamel acid etching preceding their application, and of one new 8th generation all-in-one bonding agent combined with a traditional adhesive used to bond stainless steel buccal tubes to molar teeth.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four groups of teeth were formulated according to the adhesive system used to bond the tubes on the molars. Shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine (Hounsfield, UK). After debonding, each enamel surface was imaged using Inspex HD l080p Vesa camera (Ash Technologies Ltd., Ireland) to determine the ARI score.

RESULTS

The mean SBSs in MPa for the four groups were respectively: A: 9.640 (±3.69), B: 10.261 (±3.03), C: 9.689 (±2.48), D: 8.412 (±3.02). No statistically significant differences were neither found through one-way ANOVA to exist between the group means (P: 0.715), nor for the ARI score frequence through Chi² (P: 0.534). Maxcem Elite showed four and G-Premio Bond zero instances of enamel fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

1. SBSs of all adhesives and ARI score distributions did not present any significant differences when used to bond stainless steel molar tubes. 2. All adhesives presented with acceptable shear bond strengths for clinical use. 3. Maxcem Elite under the tested conditions presented the greatest and G-Premio the least number of enamel fractures.

The treatment modalities of masticatory muscle pain a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Numerous treatment modalities have been attempted for masticatory muscle pain in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). To compare the treatment efficacy of more than 2 competing treatments, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted.

METHODS

This study was reported with reference to the extended Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. Medline via Pubmed, Embase via OVID, and Cochrane Library Central were searched (up to February 11, 2019). Axis I protocol of Diagnostic Criteria or Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD, RDC/TMD) were chosen as diagnostic standards. The PICOS (Problem/patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design) method was used to screen trials under eligibility criteria. And the NMA was performed with mvmeta commands in Stata (StataCorp, Tex).

RESULTS

Of 766 studies searched, 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were finally included. Nineteen different therapies were found and further categorized into 9 treatment modalities. The general heterogeneity was not found among included trials. But predictive intervals (PrIs) were conspicuously wider than confidential intervals (CIs) of all pairwise comparisons, indicating that heterogeneity may exist between studies. Complementary therapy showed the greatest probability (42.7%) to be the best intervention. It also had the highest mean rank (2.3) in the rankogram and the biggest value of surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA, 84.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited evidence of available trials, complementary therapy seemed to be slightly more effective than remaining treatment modalities for pain reduction in TMD patients with masticatory muscle pain. High-quality randomized controlled trials are expected to validate the findings.

Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated and compared the completeness of reporting of abstracts of orthodontics systematic reviews before and after the publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Abstracts Checklist (PRISMA-A).

METHODS

Abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics published in PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases before March 23, 2018, that met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, were evaluated using the 12 items of PRISMA-A, scoring each item from 0 to 2. Abstracts were classified into 2 groups: before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist. Three calibrated evaluators (intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa > 0.8) assessed the scores for compliance with the checklist. The number of authors, country of affiliation of the first author, performance of meta-analysis, and topic of the article were recorded. A regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between abstract characteristics and the PRISMA-A scores.

RESULTS

Of 1034 abstracts evaluated, 389 were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-A score was 53.39 (95% CI, 51.83-54.96). The overall score for studies published after the publication of the checklist was significantly higher than for studies published before (P ≤ 0.0001). The components returning significantly higher scores after publication of PRISMA-A were title (P = 0.024), information from databases (P = 0.026), risk of bias (P ≤ 0.0001), included studies (P ≤ 0.0001), synthesis of results (P ≤ 0.0001), interpretation of results (P = 0.035), financing and conflict of interest (P ≤ 0.0001), and registration (P ≤ 0.0001). These results showed the positive effect of PRISMA-A had on the quality of reporting of orthodontics systematic reviews. Nevertheless, the poor adherence revealed that there is still need for improvement in the quality of abstract reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting of abstracts of orthodontic systematic reviews and meta-analyses increased after the introduction of PRISMA-A.

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials

Evidence shows that the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. The lack of transparent reporting impedes readers from judging the reliability and validity of trial findings and researchers from extracting information for systematic reviews and results in research waste. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the reporting of RCTs. Within person trials are used for conditions that can affect two or more body sites, and are a useful and efficient tool because the comparisons between interventions are within people. Such trials are most commonly conducted in ophthalmology, dentistry, and dermatology. The reporting of within person trials has, however, been variable and incomplete, hindering their use in clinical decision making and by future researchers. This document presents the CONSORT extension to within person trials. It aims to facilitate the reporting of these trials. It extends 16 items of the CONSORT 2010 checklist and introduces a modified flowchart and baseline table to enhance transparency. Examples of good reporting and evidence based rationale for CONSORT within person checklist items are provided.

Meta-analysis of efficacy and adverse events of erlotinib-based targeted therapies for advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

A network meta-analysis evaluating efficacy and adverse events of eight erlotinib-based therapies (erlotinib+placebo, erlotinib+tivantinib, erlotinib+celecoxib, erlotinib+onartuzumab, erlotinib+sunitinib, erlotinib+entinostat, erlotinib+sorafenib, and erlotinib+bevacizumab) for advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was performed. PubMed and Cochrane Library were reviewed, and ten randomized controlled trials were identified in which patients receiving at least one erlotinib-based therapy. Efficacy outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse outcomes were evaluated. Patients treated with erlotinib+tivantinib, or erlotinib+celecoxib had longer PFS than patients on erlotinib+placebo; patients on erlotinib+tivantinib had longer OS compared to erlotinib+placebo. For PFS, erlotinib+celecoxib had the highest value of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). For OS, erlotinib+tivantinib had the highest SUCRA. For ORR, erlotinib+bevacizumab had the highest SUCRA, while erlotinib+entinostat ranked the lowest. For DCR, erlotinib+sorafenib had the highest SUCRA. Erlotinib+onartuzumab had the highest SUCRA for diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and dyspnea. Erlotinib+sunitinib had the lowest SUCRA for diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Erlotinib + entinostat had the lowest SUCRA for fatigue, asthenia, and dyspnea. Our study suggests erlotinib+tivantinib and erlotinib+celecoxib regimens have the best long-term efficacy, while erlotinib+sunitinib and erlotinib+entinostat have the fewest adverse effects in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC.

Overview of registered studies in orthodontics: Evaluation of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry

INTRODUCTION

The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 made it mandatory for all phase II through IV trials regulated by this Act to be registered. After this, the National Institutes of Health created ClinicalTrials.gov, which is a registry of publicly and privately supported clinical studies of human participants. The objective of this study was to examine the characteristics of registered studies in orthodontics.

METHODS

The ClinicalTrials.gov Web site was used to query all registered orthodontic studies. The search term used was "orthodontics." No limitations were placed for the time period. All registered studies regardless of their recruitment status, study results, and study type were selected for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 64 orthodontic studies were registered as of January 1, 2014. Of these, 52 were interventional, and 12 were observational. Close to 60% of the interventional studies and 66.7% of the observational studies had sample sizes of 50 or fewer subjects. About 21.2% of the interventional studies and 16.7% of the observational studies had sample sizes greater than 100. Only 1 study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the rest were funded by "other" or "industry" sources. Close to 87.7% of the interventional studies were randomized. Interventional model assignments included factorial assignment (3.9%), parallel assignments (74.5%), crossover assignment (7.8%), and single-group assignment (13.7%). Most studies were treatment oriented (80.4%). The types of masking used by the interventional studies included open label (28.9%), single blind (44.2%), and double blind (26.9%). Outcome assessors were blinded in only 6 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthodontic studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov are dominated by small single-center studies. There are wide variations with regard to treatment allocation approaches and randomization methods in the studies. These results also indicate the need for multicenter clinical studies in orthodontics.