Long-term Stability of Orthodontic Treatment and Patient Satisfaction

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate morphologic stability and patient satisfaction at least 5 years after orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: Published literature was searched through the PubMed and Cochrane Library electronic databases from 1966 to January 2005. The search was performed by an information specialist at the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. The inclusion criteria consisted of a follow-up period of at least 5 years postretention; randomized clinical trials, prospective or retrospective clinical controlled studies, and cohort studies; and orthodontic treatment including fixed or removable appliances, selective grinding, or extractions. Two reviewers extracted the data independently and also assessed the quality of the studies. Results:The search strategy resulted in 1004 abstracts or full-text articles, of which 38 met the inclusion criteria. Treatment of crowding resulted in successful dental alignment. However, the mandibular arch length and width gradually decreased, and crowding of the lower anterior teeth reoccurred postretention. This condition was unpredictable at the individual level (limited evidence). Treatment of Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion with Herbst appliance normalized the occlusion. Relapse occurred but could not be predicted at the individual level (limited evidence). The scientific evidence was insufficient for conclusions on treatment of cross-bite, Angle Class III, open bite, and various other malocclusions as well as on patient satisfaction in a long-term perspective. Conclusions: This review has exposed the difficulties in drawing meaningful evidence-based conclusions often because of the inherent problems of retrospective and uncontrolled study design.

Changes in oral microbiota due to orthodontic appliances: a systematic review

“…The SBU method divided the methodological quality of the articles into three grades: grade A – high value of evidence, grade B – moderate value of evidence, and grade C – low value of evidence; once a score had been assigned to each study, the review’s level of evidence was stated in four grades: grade 1 – strong scientific evidence (at least two studies assessed at level A), grade 2 – moderate scientific evidence (one level A study and at least two studies at level B), grade 3 – limited scientific evidence (at least two studies at level B), and grade 4 – insufficient scientific evidence (fewer than two studies at level B) (Table 3–4) [8]. …”

Ajuste oclusal na Ortodontia: por que, quando e como?

“…A outra seria lançar mão de todo o conhecimento e esforço para a finalização precisa dos casos, com controle do movimento dentário associado ao desgaste seletivo e, algumas vezes, procedimentos restauradores. efeito é diluído ou mascarado por outros fatores, como é visto na maioria dos desenhos de pesquisa disponíveis na literatura 3,29 . 2) O mais importante -os contatos oclusais sem equilíbrio só podem gerar força e conseqüente movimento dentário quando considerada intensidade e duração.…”

Combined Orthodontic and Orthognathic Surgical Treatment for the Correction of Skeletal Anterior Open-Bite Malocclusion: A Systematic Review on Vertical Stability

“…To assess the methodologic soundness of each article, a quality evaluation was used according to a scoring system developed by the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care, 20 which is based on the criteria for assessing study quality from the Center for Reviews and Disseminations in the UK. 21 The external and internal validities and the quality of methodology, statistics, and performance of each study were assessed, and the studies were graded with a score of A to C according to predetermined criteria (Table 1).…”

“…6,7,[44][45][46][47][48][49][50] Using the quality evaluation according to the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care, 20 most of these studies were scored as grade C (low value of evidence) and only 2 were ranked as B (moderate value of evidence). None were graded as having a high value of evidence (grade A).…”