Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment:study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Edgewise fixed orthodontic appliances are available in two different bracket slot sizes (0.018 and 0.022 inch). Both systems are used by clinicians worldwide with some orthodontists claiming the superiority and clinical advantages of one system over the other. However, the scientific evidence supporting this area is scarce and weak. This leaves the clinician’s choice of bracket slot system to clinical preference. We aim to compare the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch pre-adjusted bracket slot systems in terms of the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, undertaken in the secondary care hospital environment in the NHS Tayside region of Scotland (United Kingdom). A total of 216 orthodontic patients will be recruited in three centers in secondary care hospitals in NHS Tayside. The participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slot systems (n = 108 for each group) using Victory series™ conventional pre-adjusted bracket systems (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, United States). Baseline records and outcome data collected during and at the end of orthodontic treatment will be assessed. The primary outcome measures will be the duration of orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches. The secondary outcome measures will be the number of scheduled appointments for orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches, treatment outcome using Peer Assessment Rating index (PAR), orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (as measured using periapical radiographs) and the patient’s perception of wearing orthodontic appliances. DISCUSSION: The results from the current study will serve as evidence to guide the clinician in deciding whether the difference in bracket slot size has a significant impact on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338

Clinical evaluation of marketed orthodontic products: are researchers behind the times? A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: The role of marketing and industry in the treatment decisions of orthodontists has received increasing attention in recent years with clinical research typically undertaken subsequent to established use of these devices and often failing to confirm the promise of manufacturers' claims. This meta-epidemiological study was undertaken to assess the proportion of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products and to evaluate the direction of the results of these studies. METHODS: Electronic searching was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 5-year period (1 January 2012 to 31 December 2016). Data obtained included the type of marketed intervention, direction of effect and declaration of both industry sponsorship and conflict of interest. RESULTS: Eighty-four RCTs published in 23 scientific journals were included with the highest percentage in the American Journal of Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO) (23.8%), followed by the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) (14.3%), Journal of Orthodontics (JO) (10.7%) and Angle Orthodontist (AO) (10.7%). Overall, 45% (38/84) of clinical trials assessed involved analysis of marketed products after their introduction. Interventions to improve oral health or circumvent the risk of iatrogenic damage, such as white spot lesions, were most commonly assessed (15.8%), with the relative merits of non-surgical adjuncts (14.1%) and other orthodontic auxiliaries (13.1%) also frequently evaluated. In 44% of RCTs, a positive effect of the marketed intervention was not reported. Industry sponsorship of the research was declared in 9.5% RCTs. No significant associations between the direction of the effect and both declaration of industry sponsorship (p = 0.56) and conflict of interest (p = 0.96) were detected. Moreover, for marketed and non-marketed products, no significant associations for both declaration of industry sponsorship (p = 0.44) and conflict of interest (p = 0.28) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of orthodontic clinical trials over the past 5 years involve analysis of marketed products after their introduction. The results highlight a potential source of waste in orthodontic research emanating from existing approaches to licensing and marketing of orthodontic products