BackgroundAim was to systematically search the literature and assess the available evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of the Invisalign® system.MethodsElectronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The reference lists of all eligible articles were examined for additional studies. Reporting of this review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.ResultsThree RCTs, 8 prospective, and 11 retrospective studies were included. In general, the level of evidence was moderate and the risk of bias ranged from low to high, given the low risk of bias in included RCTs and the moderate (n = 13) or high (n = 6) risk of the other studies. The lack of standardized protocols and the high amount of clinical and methodological heterogeneity across the studies precluded a valid interpretation of the actual results through pooled estimates. However, there was substantial consistency among studies that the Invisalign® system is a viable alternative to conventional orthodontic therapy in the correction of mild to moderate malocclusions in non-growing patients that do not require extraction. Moreover, Invisalign® aligners can predictably level, tip, and derotate teeth (except for cuspids and premolars). On the other hand, limited efficacy was identified in arch expansion through bodily tooth movement, extraction space closure, corrections of occlusal contacts, and larger antero-posterior and vertical discrepancies.ConclusionsAlthough this review included a considerable number of studies, no clear clinical recommendations can be made, based on solid scientific evidence, apart from non-extraction treatment of mild to moderate malocclusions in non-growing patients. Results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40510-018-0235-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

None.

No abstract

Background: The recently published clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the treatment of periodontitis in stages I-III provided evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of periodontitis patients, defined according to the 2018 classification. Stage IV periodontitis shares the severity and complexity characteristics of stage III periodontitis, but includes the anatomical and functional sequelae of tooth and periodontal attachment loss (tooth flaring and drifting, bite collapse, etc.), which require additional interventions following completion of active periodontal therapy. Aim: To develop an S3 Level CPG for the treatment of stage IV periodontitis, focusing on the implementation of inter-disciplinary treatment approaches required to treat/rehabilitate patients following associated sequelae and tooth loss. Materials and Methods: This S3 Level CPG was developed by the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP), following methodological guidance from the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process. A rigorous and transparent process included synthesis of relevant research in 13 specifically commissioned systematic reviews, evaluation of the quality and strength of evidence, the formulation of specific recommendations and a structured consensus process with leading experts and a broad base of stakeholders. Results: The S3 Level CPG for the treatment of stage IV periodontitis culminated in recommendations for different interventions, including orthodontic tooth movement, EFP workshop participants and methodological consultant are listed in Appendix.

Within the inherent limit of the uncertainty about the true value of gingival thickness, the present results demonstrate the differences between the tested methods, as far as accuracy and reproducibility are concerned. Based on the reproducibility, the transgingival probing with the periodontal probe as well as the ultrasound determination, seem to present an adequate choice for every day practice.

CBCT is used primarily to evaluate bony anatomy and to screen for overt pathology of the maxillary sinuses prior to dental implant treatment. Differences in the classification of mucosal findings are problematic in the consistent and valid assessment of health and disease of the maxillary sinus.

CBCT provides 3D information about location and shape of supernumerary teeth as well as prevalence and degree of root resorption of neighbouring teeth with moderate to high interrater correlation.

No abstract