This prospective 3-arm parallel-group randomized clinical trial investigated the effect of supplemental vibrational force on rate of orthodontic tooth alignment with fixed appliances. Eighty-one subjects (40 males, 41 females; mean age, 14.1 y) undergoing first premolar extraction-based fixed appliance treatment were randomly allocated to treatment supplemented with daily use (20 min) of a removable intraoral vibrational device (AcceleDent; OrthoAccel Technologies Inc.; n = 29), an identical nonfunctional (sham) device (n = 25), or fixed appliances only (n = 27). Mandibular study casts were taken at baseline (treatment start: placement of 0.014-in. nickel-titanium arch wire), initial alignment (0.018-in. nickel-titanium arch wire), and final alignment (0.019 x 0.025-in. stainless steel arch wire). Overall mean irregularity index in the mandibular arch at baseline was 8.5 ± 3.8 mm (95% CI, 7.6 to 9.3) with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.73). For the total sample, mean irregularity index at initial alignment was 2.7 ± 2.8 mm (95% CI, 2.2 to 3.4) with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.40). Mean time from baseline to initial alignment was 59 ± 25 d (95% CI, 54.5 to 65.6); from initial to final alignment, 150 ± 62.5 d (95% CI, 136 to 165); and baseline to final alignment, 209 ± 65 d (95% CI, 195 to 224). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that patterns of alignment were not significantly different among the 3 groups (P = 0.66). Multivariate linear regression for initial and overall alignment rates using initial irregularity index as the covariate showed no significant differences among groups. The most important influence on both initial and overall rates of alignment was initial irregularity (P = 0.1 × 10(-4)). This prospective randomized clinical trial found no evidence that supplemental vibrational force can significantly increase the rate of initial tooth movement or reduce the amount of time required to achieve final alignment when used in conjunction with a preadjusted edgewise fixed appliance (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02314975).

Building on recent interest in formative contexts and management in the USA, this article explores the contribution of the Academy of Management to the development of modern management theory. Drawing on archival research and content analysis of selected management textbooks, we examine the development of the Academy of Management from 1936 to 1960 and the role of its presidents in the dissemination of management theory. We conclude that there is some evidence that the Academy allied itself with dominant Cold War themes that translated into a philosophy of management, which influenced the character of the organization for decades.Though it is unlikely that the Academy per se had much influence on the development of management theory, its early leadership may have had a disproportionate influence through the medium of the business textbook.

INTRODUCTION A multicenter parallel 3-arm randomized clinical trial was carried out in 1 university and 2 district hospitals in the United Kingdom to investigate the effect of supplemental vibrational force on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) during the alignment phase of fixed appliance therapy. METHODS Eighty-one subjects less than 20 years old with mandibular incisor irregularity undergoing extraction-based fixed-appliance treatment were randomly allocated to supplementary (20 minutes a day) use of an intraoral vibrational device (AcceleDent; OrthoAccel Technologies, Houston, Tex) (n = 29), an identical nonfunctional (sham) device (n = 25), or fixed appliances only (n = 27). OIIRR was measured blindly from long-cone periapical radiographs of the maxillary right central incisor taken at the start of treatment and the end of alignment when a 0.019 × 0.025-in stainless steel archwire was placed (mean follow-up, 201.6 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 188.6-214.6 days). Data were analyzed blindly on a per-protocol basis because losses to follow-up were minimal, with descriptive statistics, 1-way analysis of variance, and univariable and multivariable regression modeling. RESULTS Nine patients were excluded from the analysis; they were evenly distributed across the groups. Mean overall OIIRR measured among the 72 patients was 1.08 mm (95% CI, 0.89-1.27 mm). Multivariable regression indicated no significant difference in OIIRR for the AcceleDent (difference, 0.22 mm; 95% CI, -0.14-0.72; P = 0.184) and AcceleDent sham groups (difference, 0.29 mm; 95% CI, -0.15-0.99; P = 0.147) compared with the fixed-appliance-only group, after accounting for patient sex, age, malocclusion, extraction pattern, alignment time, maximum pain experienced, history of dentoalveolar trauma, and initial root length of the maxillary right central incisor. No other side-effects were recorded apart from pain and OIIRR. CONCLUSIONS The use of supplemental vibrational force during the alignment phase of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment does not affect OIIRR associated with the maxillary central incisor. REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02314975). PROTOCOL The protocol was not published before trial commencement. FUNDING Functional and sham AcceleDent units were donated by the manufacturer; there was no contribution to the conduct or the writing of this study.

AcceleDent units were donated by OrthoAccel Technologies; no contribution to the conduct or the writing of this study was made by the manufacturer.

Summary:  Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of two dissemination and implementation strategies to implement a national guideline for epilepsy management in primary care settings. Methods: Three‐arm cluster‐randomized controlled trial. The participants were general practitioners from 68 practices in Tayside, Scotland, and 1,133 of their patients with self‐reported epilepsy treated with antiepileptic medications (AEDs). Practices were randomized blind to a control, intermediate, or intensive intervention. Control: Postal dissemination of a nationally developed clinical guideline. Intermediate intervention: Postal dissemination of the guideline supported by interactive, accredited workshops, and dedicated, structured protocol documents. Intensive intervention: Intermediate intervention plus a nurse specialist who supported and educated practices in the establishment of epilepsy review clinics. The primary outcome was the SF‐36 health‐related quality‐of‐life instrument. Secondary measures were a battery of prevalidated epilepsy‐specific quality‐of‐life instruments. These were administered at baseline and after the intervention phase. Process of care was assessed by case‐note review on number of review meetings and counseling sessions for epilepsy before and after the interventions. Results: None of the intervention groups showed any change in the primary or secondary outcome measures or process‐of‐care measures. Conclusions: None of the intervention strategies led to improvements in patient quality of life or quality of epilepsy care. Further research is needed to discover why the interventions failed, to identify barriers to adoption of guidelines, and to develop strategies that might improve implementation and uptake in the future.