LILAC 2024: Compassion, authenticity, and positive pragmatism (Conference report)

LILAC 2024 was hosted at Leeds Beckett University in March 2024. This conference report explores the key themes of compassion and authenticity for ourselves and for our learners, and shares the positive and pragmatic approaches presented during the event. These themes were realised through a range of sessions on topics including: artificial intelligence and critical AI literacy; playfulness, creativity and visual approaches to induction; and inclusive design in our teaching and our libraries. The pragmatic and innovative examples shared at LILAC, within a spirit of compassion and inclusiveness, encourage us to recontextualise existing IL skills and literacies for our learners, which have never been more important

Email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals

Email is one of the most widely used methods of communication, but its use in healthcare is still uncommon. Where email communication has been utilised in health care, its purposes have included clinical communication between healthcare professionals, but the effects of using email in this way are not well known. We updated a 2012 review of the use of email for two-way clinical communication between healthcare professionals

The influence of using digital diagnostic information on orthodontic treatment planning - a pilot study

The purpose of this pilot study was to assess whether orthodontic treatment planning is reproducible when carried out using digital records compared with clinical examinations or using standard records. The study also assessed patients' opinion of face-to-face consultations and potential use of teleorthodontics. The study was designed as a prospective observational cross-sectional pilot study and carried out in a UK dental teaching hospital involving 27 subjects. Four consultant Orthodontists carried out treatment planning, firstly following a clinical examination, then using standard records, and then using digital records. Each subject completed a questionnaire. Cohen's kappa coefficient and Fleiss' kappa coefficient were used to assess intra-observer reproducibility and inter-observer reproducibility of treatment planning decisions, respectively. A change in the diagnostic information format affected treatment planning reproducibility for half of the observers. Inter-observer reproducibility was greater when using hard copy records in comparison to digital records. No subjects were unsatisfied with their face-to-face consultation

Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment

Background: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being glued to the teeth so that they do not become detached during treatment. Brackets (metal squares) are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round each tooth) are more commonly used. Orthodontic tubes (stainless steel tubes that allow wires to pass through them), are typically welded to bands but they may also be glued directly (bonded) to molars. Failure of brackets, bands and bonded molar tubes slows down the progress of treatment with a fixed appliance. It can also be costly in terms of clinical time, materials and time lost from education/work for the patient. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2011. A new full search was conducted on 15 February 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane review remain the same. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes, and the relative effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes versus adhesives used to attach bands, during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the tubes (or bands) come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the bonded (or banded) teeth against decay. Search methods: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 February 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 February 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 February 2017). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials of participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes, bonded to first or second permanent molars. Trials which compared any type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (stainless steel or titanium) with any other adhesive, were included. Trials were also included where: (1) a tube was bonded to a molar tooth on one side of an arch and a band cemented to the same tooth type on the opposite side of the same arch; (2) molar tubes had been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group. Data collection and analysis: The selection of papers, decision about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. Main results: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. Authors' conclusions: From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions