Summary Background Root resorption can be considered the most unfortunate complication of orthodontic treatment. Objective To evaluate the available evidence regarding orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR). Search methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted for the systematic reviews investigating OIIRR published up to 24 May 2020. This was accomplished using electronic databases: MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), PubMed, and Web of Science. Any ongoing systematic reviews were searched using Prospero and a grey literature search was undertaken using Google Scholar and OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu/). No language restriction was applied. Selection criteria Only studies investigating OIIRR were included. Data collection and analysis Screening, quality assessment [using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews)], and data extraction were performed by two authors independently. Information was categorized and narratively synthesized for the key findings from moderate and high-quality reviews. Results A total of 2033 potentially eligible studies were identified. After excluding the non-relevant studies, 28 systematic reviews were included. Of which, 20 systematic reviews (71.5%) were of moderate and high-quality level of evidence. The incidence and severity of OIIRR increase with the fixed appliance, especially with heavy force, intrusion, torqueing movements, increased treatment duration, and treatment with extractions or with long apical displacement (particularly for maxillary incisors). There was insufficient evidence regarding most other treatment- and patient-related factors on OIIRR. Following all precautionary measures, pausing treatment and regular monitoring benefits patients with OIIRR. Conclusions and implications There is a limited number of high-quality studies in terms of OIIRR. The influence of fixed appliance on root resorption was noted; however, the cause and effect relationship between OIIRR and orthodontic biomechanics has not been confirmed. Avoiding heavy, continuous forces and a greater amount of apical displacement over a long duration of treatment is recommended. Precautionary measures should be carefully considered when treating patients with a high risk of OIIRR. Registration CRD42020166629.

Objective This study compares the accuracy and reliability of WebCeph (web-based program for cephalometric analysis) with the AutoCAD computer software. Materials and methods A sample of pretreatment digital lateral cephalograms of 50 orthodontic patients was analysed with WebCeph and AutoCAD software (as a standard measure). On each cephalogram, 17 landmarks and 11 measurements were marked and performed as skeletal, dental, and soft–tissue parameters. We used six angular and five linear measurements. A paired t-test was used to assess the systematic bias. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland–Altman plot with linear regression analysis were used to assess the agreement between the two methods. Results There was adequate reproducibility for the measurements with both WebCeph and AutoCAD. The paired t-test showed statistically significant differences for five angular and two linear measurements (P < 0.05). The ICC test between WebCeph and AutoCAD revealed very good to excellent agreement for all measurements, except for the lower incisor to mandibular plane angle. The Bland–Altman plot visually showed a relatively acceptable limit of agreement for three angular and two linear measurements only, and the linear regression analysis revealed a significant proportional bias between the two methods for four angles and the upper lip-Esthetic line (U Lip-E Line). The systematic bias and level of agreement improved with the use of the semi-automatic WebCeph. Conclusions Different problems, such as poor landmark identification/soft tissue tracing and inconsistency of measurements, are inherent to the automatic WebCeph. The semi-automatic WebCeph can overcome some limitations of the automatic WebCeph; however, it should be used for cephalometric analysis with a great deal of caution.

Summary Background Patient perception with fixed appliance orthodontic treatment is important to improve oral health-related quality of life. Objective The main objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of labial fixed appliance orthodontic care on patient perception before, during, and after the treatment. Search methods Relevant systematic reviews investigating patient perception with fixed appliance orthodontic treatment were identified by searching electronic databases: MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 31 December 2018), EMBASE (1974 to 31 December 2018), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database; 1985 to November 2018), PubMed (inception to 31 December 2018), Web of Science (1900 to 2018), and PsychINFO (1806 to 31 December 2018). Ongoing systematic reviews were searched using Prospero and a grey literature search was undertaken using Google Scholar and OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu/). No language restriction was applied. Selection criteria Only studies investigating patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment were included. Data collection and analysis Screening, quality assessment [using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews)], and data extraction were performed by two authors independently. Information was categorized and narratively synthesized for the key findings. Results A total of 163 articles investigating patient expectation, experience, and satisfaction with conventional ligation labial fixed orthodontic appliances were obtained. Of these, 152 observational or interventional studies were excluded, resulting in 11 eligible systematic reviews. Two were excluded as earlier reports of a Cochrane review. The quality of the reviews was variable (critically low, low, and moderate). The findings were as follows: aesthetics represents a primary motive for orthodontic treatment; a temporary deterioration in the quality of life occurs during the initial phases of treatment; gender and ethnicity factors do not have an impact on patient perception of treatment; and a positive relationship between orthodontist–patient–parent is important to achieve patient compliance and satisfaction. Conclusions There is a lack of high-quality studies in terms of systematic reviews and meta-analyses for assessing patient perception with fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. The aesthetic impact of malocclusion is the main motive for seeking orthodontic treatment. Quality of life reduces during the initial stages of orthodontic treatment but improves in the later stages of treatment. Assessment before, during, and after orthodontic treatment is necessary to comprehensively assess patient perception at all stages of care. Trial registration CRD42019122653. Conflict of Interest None to declare.

SummaryBackground/objective: To assess the validity and reliability of a series of three questionnaires for the quantification of patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. Subjects and methods:The study was carried out at the University of Dundee with content and face validity being assessed using proformas. Initially ten experts (Orthodontic Specialists) assessed content validity with 11 professionals (seven Orthodontic Specialists and four Postgraduates) and 20 patients assessing face validity. Content validity was determined according to the values of item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale-level CVI (S-CVI/Ave), while specially designed feedback forms were used for face validation. Internal consistency determined the reliability of the questionnaires according to the value of Cronbach alpha correlation coefficient test. The three questionnaires were then modified according to the recommendations of professionals and patients with seven experts reassessing content validity and ten newly selected patients assessing face validity. Results: The first round of content validity revealed that around half of the items in the questionnaires were not valid. Therefore, the questionnaires were not valid as a whole (S-CVI/Ave = 0.60). After modifying the questionnaires and removing the non-valid items, the new versions of the Pretreatment, Orthodontic Experience, and Post-treatment Questionnaires showed high levels of face validity, content validity (S-CVI/Ave: 0.99, 0.97, and 0.99, respectively) and good levels of internal consistency (α = 0.86, 0.78, and 0.88, respectively). Limitation: The patient sample was collected from a single university clinic and from one city within the UK and this could affect the generalizability of the results. Conclusion: Three content valid and reliable questionnaires have been developed and validated for the evaluation of patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. Implications: Unlike other tools that assess oral health quality of life, this series of three questionnaires assess the perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment before, during and after treatment.

No abstract

The protocol was published at DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-389.

The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338.

The protocol was published at DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-389.