The effectiveness of laceback ligatures during initial orthodontic alignment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lacebacks may be used to limit unwanted incisor proclination during initial orthodontic alignment; however, their use has not met with universal approval. This systematic review aims to appraise the evidence in relation to the effectiveness of lacebacks in controlling incisor position during initial alignment. Electronic database searches of published literature (MEDLINE via Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, and IBECS) and unpublished literature were performed. Search terms used included randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, random allocation, double blind method, orthodontics, and laceback. Data were extracted using custom forms. Risk of bias assessment was made using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. The quality of the evidence was also assessed using GRADE. Mean differences in incisor inclination and antero-posterior changes in incisor and molar position during alignment were calculated. Two studies involving 97 participants were found to be at low risk of bias and were included in the quantitative synthesis. The random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of lacebacks was associated with 0.5 mm greater posterior movement of the incisors during alignment; this finding was of limited clinical importance and statistically non-significant [95 per cent confidence interval (CI): −1.25, 0.25, P = 0.19]. Little difference (0.46 mm) was also found between laceback and non-laceback groups with regards to mesial molar movement (95 per cent CI: −0.33, 1.24, P = 0.26). According to the GRADE assessment, the overall quality of evidence relating to the use of lacebacks was high. There is no evidence to support the use of lacebacks for the control of the sagittal position of the incisors during initial orthodontic alignmen

Sample size in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: are numbers justified?

Sample size calculations are advocated by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to analyse the reporting of sample size calculations in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals. The performance of sample size calculations was assessed and calculations verified where possible. Related aspects, including number of authors; parallel, split-mouth, or other design; single- or multi-centre study; region of publication; type of data analysis (intention-to-treat or per-protocol basis); and number of participants recruited and lost to follow-up, were considered. Of 139 RCTs identified, complete sample size calculations were reported in 41 studies (29.5 per cent). Parallel designs were typically adopted (n = 113; 81 per cent), with 80 per cent (n = 111) involving two arms and 16 per cent having three arms. Data analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis in a small minority of studies (n = 18; 13 per cent). According to the calculations presented, overall, a median of 46 participants were required to demonstrate sufficient power to highlight meaningful differences (typically at a power of 80 per cent). The median number of participants recruited was 60, with a median of 4 participants being lost to follow-up. Our finding indicates good agreement between projected numbers required and those verified (median discrepancy: 5.3 per cent), although only a minority of trials (29.5 per cent) could be examined. Although sample size calculations are often reported in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals, presentation is suboptimal and in need of significant improvemen

A comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with surgical exposure and traction of maxillary impacted canines versus that without impactions

SUMMARYBACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Orthodontic management of maxillary canine impaction (MCI), including forced eruption, may result in significant root resorption; however, the association between MCI and orthodontically induced root resorption (OIRR) is not yet sufficiently established. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to comparatively evaluate the severity of OIRR of maxillary incisors in orthodontically treated patients with MCI. Additionally, impaction characteristics were associated with OIRR severity. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The sample comprised 48 patients undergoing fixed-appliance treatment—24 with unilateral/bilateral MCI and 24 matched controls without impaction. OIRR was calculated using pre- and post-operative panoramic tomograms. The orientation of eruption path, height, sector location, and follicle/tooth ratio of the impacted canine were also recorded. Mann-Whitney U-test and univariate and multivariate linear mixed models were used to test for the associations of interest. RESULTS: Maxillary central left incisor underwent more OIRR in the impaction group (mean difference = 0.58mm, P = 0.04). Overall, the impaction group had 0.38mm more OIRR compared to the control (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.03, 0.74; P = 0.04). However, multivariate analysis demonstrated no difference in the amount of OIRR between impaction and non-impaction groups overall. A positive association between OIRR and initial root length was observed (95% CI: 0.08, 0.27; P < 0.001). The severity of canine impaction was not found to be a significant predictor of OIRR. LIMITATIONS: This study was a retrospective study and used panoramic tomograms for OIRR measurements. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that MCI is a weak OIRR predictor. Interpretation of the results needs caution due to the observational nature of the present stud

The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand?

AIM: To analyse meta-analyses included in systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) focusing on orthodontic literature and to assess the quality of the existing evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searching was undertaken to identify SRs published in five major orthodontic journals and the CDSR between January 2000 and June 2014. Quality assessment of the overall body of evidence from meta-analyses was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group (GRADE) tool. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven SRs were identified; meta-analysis was present in 43 of these (27.4 per cent). The highest proportion of SRs that included a meta-analysis was found in Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (6/13; 46.1 per cent), followed by the CDSR (12/33; 36.4 per cent) and the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (15/44; 34.1 per cent). Class II treatment was the most commonly addressed topic within SRs in orthodontics (n = 18/157; 11.5 per cent). The number of trials combined to produce a summary estimate was small for most meta-analyses with a median of 4 (range: 2-52). Only 21 per cent (n = 9) of included meta-analyses were considered to have a high/moderate quality of evidence according to GRADE, while the majority were of low or very low quality (n = 34; 79.0 per cent). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, approximately one quarter of orthodontic SRs included quantitative synthesis, with a median of four trials per meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence from the selected orthodontic SRs was predominantly low to very low indicating the relative lack of high quality of evidence from SRs to inform clinical practice guideline

The effectiveness of laceback ligatures during initial orthodontic alignment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lacebacks may be used to limit unwanted incisor proclination during initial orthodontic alignment; however, their use has not met with universal approval. This systematic review aims to appraise the evidence in relation to the effectiveness of lacebacks in controlling incisor position during initial alignment. Electronic database searches of published literature (MEDLINE via Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, and IBECS) and unpublished literature were performed. Search terms used included randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, random allocation, double blind method, orthodontics, and laceback. Data were extracted using custom forms. Risk of bias assessment was made using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. The quality of the evidence was also assessed using GRADE. Mean differences in incisor inclination and antero-posterior changes in incisor and molar position during alignment were calculated. Two studies involving 97 participants were found to be at low risk of bias and were included in the quantitative synthesis. The random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of lacebacks was associated with 0.5 mm greater posterior movement of the incisors during alignment; this finding was of limited clinical importance and statistically non-significant [95 per cent confidence interval (CI): -1.25, 0.25, P = 0.19]. Little difference (0.46 mm) was also found between laceback and non-laceback groups with regards to mesial molar movement (95 per cent CI: -0.33, 1.24, P = 0.26). According to the GRADE assessment, the overall quality of evidence relating to the use of lacebacks was high. There is no evidence to support the use of lacebacks for the control of the sagittal position of the incisors during initial orthodontic alignment

Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

The aims of this study were to assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) using AMSTAR and to compare the prevalence of meta-analysis in both review types. A literature search was undertaken to identify SRs that consisted of hand-searching five major orthodontic journals [American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (February 2002 to July 2011)] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2000 to July 2011. Methodological quality of the included reviews was gauged using the AMSTAR tool involving 11 key methodological criteria with a score of 0 or 1 given for each criterion. A cumulative grade was given for the paper overall (0-11); an overall score of 4 or less represented poor methodological quality, 5-8 was considered fair and 9 or greater was deemed to be good. In total, 109 SRs were identified in the five major journals and on the CDSR. Of these, 26 (23.9%) were in the CDSR. The mean overall AMSTAR score was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria; a similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the CDSR (P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis (β = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTA

"Over-reviewing" of research? An analysis of orthodontic reviews

INTRODUCTION: Research overviews may be undertaken to identify gaps in the literature, evaluate existing systematic reviews (SRs), and summarize evidence. This paper aims to profile overviews that have been conducted in orthodontics and related interventions since 2012 and to evaluate the degree of overlap among these overviews. METHODS: Overviews published between January 1, 2012 and June 20, 2023 were identified using an electronic search involving Google Scholar and PubMed. A descriptive summary was produced, and citation matrices were used to evaluate the percentage of overlap between overviews using corrected covered area and covered area. This was classified as slight, moderate, high, or very high. RESULTS: A total of 35 overviews were identified across a wide range of topics. Eight overviews included 20 SRs (median no. of SRs per overview, 15; range, 3-62). Meta-analysis was conducted in only 5 overviews. Overlap between overviews on the same topic ranged from slight (2.7%) to very high (53.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Almost all overview topics address treatments and their effects, with a wide variation in the number and quality of SRs included. There is considerable overlap in some orthodontic overviews, suggesting unnecessary duplication and research waste. Researchers should be encouraged to focus on primary data collection to add more high-quality data to SRs, which will ultimately enhance the yield from secondary and tertiary orthodontic research

The citation of relevant systematic reviews and randomised trials in published reports of trial protocols

Background It is important that planned randomised trials are justified and placed in the context of the available evidence. The SPIRIT guidelines for reporting clinical trial protocols recommend that a recent and relevant systematic review should be included. The aim of this study was to assess the use of the existing evidence in order to justify trial conduct. Methods Protocols of randomised trials published over a 1-month period (December 2015) indexed in PubMed were obtained. Data on trial characteristics relating to location, design, funding, conflict of interest and type of evidence included for trial justification was extracted in duplicate and independently by two investigators. The frequency of citation of previous research including relevant systematic reviews and randomised trials was assessed. Results Overall, 101 protocols for RCTs were identified. Most proposed trials were parallel-group (n = 74; 73.3%). Reference to an earlier systematic review with additional randomised trials was found in 9.9% (n = 10) of protocols and without additional trials in 30.7% (n = 31), while reference was made to randomised trials in isolation in 21.8% (n = 22). Explicit justification for the proposed randomised trial on the basis of being the first to address the research question was made in 17.8% (n = 18) of protocols. A randomised controlled trial was not cited in 10.9% (95% CI: 5.6, 18.7) (n = 11), while in 8.9% (95% CI: 4.2, 16.2) (n = 9) of the protocols a systematic review was cited but did not inform trial design. Conclusions A relatively high percentage of protocols of randomised trials involves prior citation of randomised trials, systematic reviews or both. However, improvements are required to ensure that it is explicit that clinical trials are justified and shaped by contemporary best evidence