No abstract

Root development of the donor teeth has been established as one the most important factor related to the success of tooth autotransplantation.

According to existing evidence, FFAs seem to be effective in improving Class II malocclusion in the short term, although their effects seem to be mainly dentoalveolar rather than skeletal.

Aim The aim of the current systematic review was to critically appraise evidence from randomized and prospective non‐randomized comparative clinical trials about the efficacy of lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement and their outcome regarding bone width gain. Materials and Methods Eight databases were searched until May 2018 for randomized and prospective non‐randomized comparative trials on lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement. After elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction and risk‐of‐bias assessment according to the Cochrane guidelines, random‐effects meta‐analyses of mean differences (MD) or relative risks (RR) and their 95% CIs were performed, followed by subgroup, meta‐regression and sensitivity analyses. Results Overall, 25 trials (16 randomized/9 non‐randomized) were identified, which included a total of 553 patients (42.2% male; mean age of 43.9 years). In these included studies and populations, various modalities for primary lateral bone augmentation rendered implant placement feasible. Small discrepancies were found between overall clinical and radiographic gain (pooled gains of 3.45 ± 1.18 mm versus 2.90 ± 0.83 mm, respectively), but were not statistically significant. Bone width gain was significantly inversely associated with baseline bone width (pooled effect: −0.35 mm/mm; 95% CI: −0.63 to −0.07 mm; p = 0.01). Additionally, % graft resorption was associated with patient age (36%/year, 95% CI: −0.62 to −0.11 mm; p = 0.01). The presence of xenograft added to autologous graft led to less resorption compared to autologous graft alone (MD: 1.06 mm; 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.92 mm; p = 0.01). Barrier membrane did not yield significant difference in terms of bone width gain (MD: −0.33 mm; 95% CI: −2.24 to 1.58 mm; p > 0.05) and graft resorption (MD: 0.84 mm; 95% CI: −1.42 to 3.09 mm; p > 0.05). However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate due to bias and imprecision. Conclusions Initially smaller bone dimensions are associated with favours larger bone width gain, which indicates that a severe lateral bone deficiency can be effectively augmented applying primary lateral bone augmentation. Both Patients’ age and recipient site (maxilla or mandible) seem to influence graft resorption. The addition of a xenograft can be helpful in reducing graft resorption. Existing evidence from randomized and prospective non‐randomized trials on humans indicates that lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement can successfully increase bone width. There are some indications that patient‐related, site‐related, and technique‐related characteristics might influence the amount of gained bone width, but the quality of evidence is for the most part hampered by the small number of existing studies and methodological limitations that might lead to bias.

Although only a small percentage of orthodontic systematic reviews was registered a priori in PROSPERO, registered reviews were of higher quality than nonregistered reviews.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this systematic review was to systematically investigate whether there is an association between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and oral health. METHODS: Literature searches for randomized and non-randomized studies were performed up to January 2017. Risk of bias within studies was assessed with the Downs and Black checklist. Across-studies risk of bias was assessed with the GRADE framework. Quantitative synthesis was conducted with random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: A total of 9 cross-sectional studies including 1297 patients were included. IBD was associated with increased risk of periodontitis (332 more patients per 1000 patients; 95% confidence interval (CI): 257-388 patients; p < 0.001) compared to non-IBD patients. Additionally, the Decayed-Missing-Filled-Teeth index of IBD patients was significantly worse than non-IBD patients (mean difference: 3.85; 95% CI: 2.36-5.34; p = 0.005). Patients with ulcerative colitis had considerably worse oral health for most of the assessed factors, while the quality of overall evidence ranged from high to low, due to the observational nature of contributing studies. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammatory bowel disease was associated with significantly higher risk of periodontitis and worse oral health compared to non-IBD patients. However, longitudinal studies are needed in order to establish a causality link between IBD and periodontal disease.

The short-term evidence indicates that RFAs are effective in improving Class II malocclusion, although their effects are mainly dentoalveolar, rather than skeletal.

Objectives: To investigate, using a split-mouth randomized clinical design, the effect of micro-osteoperforation (MOP) on mini-implant supported canine retraction using fixed appliances. Materials and Methods: Thirty subjects (seven males and 23 females) with a mean age of 22.2 (3.72) years were randomized into three canine retraction groups: Group 1 (MOP 4-weekly maxilla/8-weekly mandible; n = 10); Group 2 (MOP 8-weekly maxilla/12-weekly mandible; n = 10) and Group 3 (MOP 12-weekly maxilla/4-weekly mandible; n = 10) measured at 4-week intervals over 16 weeks. Subjects also completed pain (5-point Likert scale) and pain impact (Visual Analogue Scale) questionnaires. The primary outcome was the amount of canine retraction over 16 weeks at MOP (experimental) and non-MOP (control) sites. Results: Mean overall canine retraction was 4.16 (1.62) mm with MOP and 3.06 (1.64) mm without. After adjusting for differences between jaws, all MOP groups exhibited significantly higher canine distalization than the control group: 0.89 mm more (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19 to 1.59 mm; P = .01) in the MOP-4 group, 1.08 mm more (95% CI = 0.49 to 1.68 mm; P = .001) in the MOP-8 group and 1.33 mm more (95% CI = 0.55 to 2.10 mm; P = .002) in the MOP-12 group. All subjects reported pain associated with MOP with 60% classifying it as moderate and 15% severe. The main impact of this reported pain was related to chewing and speech. Conclusions: MOP can increase overall mini-implant supported canine retraction over a 16-week period of observation but this difference is unlikely to be clinically significant.