Orthodontic camouflage versus orthodontic-orthognathic surgical treatment in borderline class III malocclusion: a systematic review.

This systematic review evaluated the available evidence regarding the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of orthodontic camouflage (OC) versus orthodontic-orthognathic surgical (OOS) treatment in borderline class III malocclusion patients. Eligibility criteria. The included studies were clinical trials and/or follow-up observational studies (retrospective and prospective). Information sources. PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane, and LILACS were searched up to October 2021. Risk of bias. Downs and Black quality assessment checklist was used. Synthesis of results. The outcomes were the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes obtained from pre- and post-cephalometric measurements. Included studies. Out of 2089 retrieved articles, 6 were eligible and thus included in the subsequent analyses. Their overall risk of bias was moderate. Outcome results. The results are presented as pre- and post-treatment values or mean changes in both groups. Two studies reported significant retrusion of the maxillary and mandibular bases in OC, in contrast to significant maxillary protrusion and mandibular retrusion with increased ANB angle in OOS. Regarding the vertical jaw relation, one study reported a significant decrease in mandibular plane inclination in OC and a significant increase in OOS. Most of the included studies reported a significant proclination in the maxillary incisors in both groups. Three studies reported a significant proclination of the mandibular incisors in OOS, while four studies reported retroclination in OC. Interpretation. The OSS has a protrusive effect on the maxillary base, retrusive effect on the mandibular base, and thus improvement in the sagittal relationship accompanied with a clockwise rotational effect on the mandibular plane. The OC has more proclination effect on the maxillary incisors and retroclination effect on the mandibular incisors compared to OOS. Limitation. Meta-analysis was not possible due to considerable variations among the included studies. Owing to the fact that some important data in the included studies were missing, conducting further studies with more standardized methodologies is highly urgent. Registration. The protocol for this systematic review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, No.: CRD42020199591). The common features including skeletal, dental, and soft tissue characteristics of borderline class III malocclusion cases make it more difficult to select the most appropriate treatment modality that can be either OC or OOS. The availability of high-level evidence-systematic reviews-makes the clinical decision much more clear and based on scientific basis rather than personal preference.Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library

Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of class II malocclusion treatment using bi-maxillary skeletal anchorage: a systematic review

Background: The goal of this systematic review was to assess the available evidence regarding the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of bi-maxillary skeletal anchorage devices (BMSADs) used in treating growing class II malocclusion patients. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane, and LILACS up to November 2021, which was augmented by a manual search. The studies included were clinical trials (RCTs) and/or follow-up observational studies (retrospective and prospective). The outcomes of interest were the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and occlusal treatment-induced changes obtained from pre- and post-cephalometric measurements. The risks of bias of the included studies were assessed using an assessment tool from previous publications. Results: Out of 742 screened articles, only 4 were eligible and thus included in the qualitative synthesis. They showed a moderate overall risk of bias. The results are presented as mean changes in both the study and control groups. All studies reported retrusion of the maxillary base and advancement of the mandible (meaning reduced ANB angle). Three of the included studies reported an increase in the vertical jaw relation, which was contrary to what the fourth study reported. Three studies reported an increase in the maxillary incisors’ inclination or position, while one study reported their retroclination. Proclination of the mandibular incisors happened in two studies, whereas the other two studies reported retroclination. The overjet was reduced in all included studies. Conclusion: Apart from the protrusive effects on the mandible, retrusive effects on the maxilla, and the consequent reduction of the overjet, BMSADs results in inconsistent skeletal and dentoalveolar effects. However, the current evidence is limited due to the variability in the biomechanics of the intermaxillary components, type of anchorage, and comparable groups in the included studies. Further RCTs with more standardized methodologies are highly encouraged. Clinical relevance: BMSADs (using miniscrews or miniplates on both jaws) induces more skeletal than dentoalveolar effects. However, this must be practiced with caution, based on the benefit to risk (surgical insertion) ratio, and the limited evidence available in hand so far. Registration The protocol for this systematic review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, No.: CRD42020199601)

Recommendations for standard criteria for the positional and morphological evaluation of temporomandibular joint osseous structures using cone-beam CT: a systematic review

Objective: This systematic review aimed to appraise the reliability and comprehensiveness of imaging methods in studies that used three-dimensional assessment of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) in order to propose a standardized imaging method. Methods: Six databases/search engines were searched up until September 2022. The outcomes of interest included measurements of the mandibular condyle, glenoid fossa, joint spaces, or the entire TMJ. Two checklists were utilized: one to assess the risk of bias, with a maximum score of 37, and the other, a pre-designed checklist consisting of 22 items to evaluate the comprehensiveness of the methods used, with a maximum score of 33. Results: Out of the 2567 records retrieved, only 14 studies, which used cone bean computed tomography (CBCT), were deemed eligible and thus included in the qualitative analysis. Three studies were deemed of low risk of bias, while the remaining studies were rated as moderate to high risk of bias, primarily due to improper reporting of inter-observer agreement, varying reliability values, and a limited number of cases included in the reliability analysis. Regarding the comprehensiveness of the methods used, only four studies achieved relatively high scores. The deficiencies observed were related to the reporting of variables such as slice thickness and voxel size, absence of or improper reporting of intra- and inter-examiner reliability analyses, and failure to assess all osseous components of the TMJ. Conclusion: CBCT-based methods used to assess the positions and morphology of TMJ bony structures appear to be imperfect and lacking in comprehensiveness. Hence, criteria for a standardized assessment method of these TMJ structures are proposed. Clinical relevance statement: Accurately, comprehensively, and reliably assessing the osseous structures of the temporomandibular joint will provide valid and valuable diagnostic features of the normal temporomandibular joint, and help establish potential associations between these osseous features and temporomandibular disorders. Registration: The protocol for this systematic review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, No.: CRD42020199792). Key Points: •Although many methods have been introduced to assess the osseous structure of the temporomandibular joint, they yielded inconsistent findings. •None of the published studies comprehensively assessed the temporomandibular joint. •Recommendations for a comprehensive temporomandibular joint osseous assessment method were suggested for better validity and reliability of future research

The global, regional, and national burden of adult lip, oral, and pharyngeal cancer in 204 countries and territories:A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Importance Lip, oral, and pharyngeal cancers are important contributors to cancer burden worldwide, and a comprehensive evaluation of their burden globally, regionally, and nationally is crucial for effective policy planning.Objective To analyze the total and risk-attributable burden of lip and oral cavity cancer (LOC) and other pharyngeal cancer (OPC) for 204 countries and territories and by Socio-demographic Index (SDI) using 2019 Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study estimates.Evidence Review The incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to LOC and OPC from 1990 to 2019 were estimated using GBD 2019 methods. The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate the proportion of deaths and DALYs for LOC and OPC attributable to smoking, tobacco, and alcohol consumption in 2019.Findings In 2019, 370 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 338 000-401 000) cases and 199 000 (95% UI, 181 000-217 000) deaths for LOC and 167 000 (95% UI, 153 000-180 000) cases and 114 000 (95% UI, 103 000-126 000) deaths for OPC were estimated to occur globally, contributing 5.5 million (95% UI, 5.0-6.0 million) and 3.2 million (95% UI, 2.9-3.6 million) DALYs, respectively. From 1990 to 2019, low-middle and low SDI regions consistently showed the highest age-standardized mortality rates due to LOC and OPC, while the high SDI strata exhibited age-standardized incidence rates decreasing for LOC and increasing for OPC. Globally in 2019, smoking had the greatest contribution to risk-attributable OPC deaths for both sexes (55.8% [95% UI, 49.2%-62.0%] of all OPC deaths in male individuals and 17.4% [95% UI, 13.8%-21.2%] of all OPC deaths in female individuals). Smoking and alcohol both contributed to substantial LOC deaths globally among male individuals (42.3% [95% UI, 35.2%-48.6%] and 40.2% [95% UI, 33.3%-46.8%] of all risk-attributable cancer deaths, respectively), while chewing tobacco contributed to the greatest attributable LOC deaths among female individuals (27.6% [95% UI, 21.5%-33.8%]), driven by high risk-attributable burden in South and Southeast Asia.Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic analysis, disparities in LOC and OPC burden existed across the SDI spectrum, and a considerable percentage of burden was attributable to tobacco and alcohol use. These estimates can contribute to an understanding of the distribution and disparities in LOC and OPC burden globally and support cancer control planning efforts

The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally. Methods The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented. Findings Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4.45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4.01-4.94) deaths and 105 million (95.0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44.4% (41.3-48.4) of all cancer deaths and 42.0% (39.1-45.6) of all DALYs. There were 2.88 million (2.60-3.18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50.6% [47.8-54.1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1.58 million (1.36-1.84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36.3% [32.5-41.3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20.4% (12.6-28.4) and DALYs by 16.8% (8.8-25.0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34.7% [27.9-42.8] and 33.3% [25.8-42.0]). Interpretation The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.Peer reviewe

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Radiation-induced thumbs carcinoma due to practicing dental X-ray

Dealing with diagnostic X-ray radiation may result in serious health problems, unless protection guidelines are followed. This became prevalent immediately a decade following the invention of X-ray radiation, where it had not been known that the accumulative exposure to X-ray radiation may carry huge health hazards. The reoccurrence of various fatal cancer cases compelled the concerned health authorities to develop safety standards to be followed by all X-ray clinics and technicians worldwide. This report documents the clinical case of a dental radiographer, who developed thumbs carcinoma after 15 years of practicing the profession, most likely due to his neglect of the X-ray radiation protection guidelines

The relationship between the dimensions of frontal air sinus and skeletal malocclusions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether the dimensions of the frontal air sinus correlate with skeletal malocclusion. Study selection: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies published up to May 23, 2023. The review included observational studies that compared the dimensions of the frontal air sinus between different skeletal malocclusions. The PECOS method was used in this study (“Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome, and Study design”). The search was done using the following English keywords: “frontal sinus” AND “lateral cephalometric” AND “malocclusion” AND “surface area”. Results: Seven studies were included, which involved 1101 participants, of whom 403 were class I, 375 were class II, and 323 were class III. These studies had a moderate risk of bias. The surface area of the frontal sinus in class III was significantly larger than in class I (standardized difference in means (SDM) = −0.971; 95 % CI = −1.147− −0.796; P < 0.001) and in class II (SDM = −1.535; 95 % CI = −1.732− −1.337; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Class III malocclusion is associated with a larger surface area of the frontal sinus compared to classes I and II