The Erasmus programme for postgraduate education in orthodontics in Europe: an update of the guidelines

In 1989, the ERASMUS Bureau of the European Cultural Foundation of the Commission of the European Communities funded the development of a new 3-year curriculum for postgraduate education in orthodontics. The new curriculum was created by directors for orthodontic education representing 15 European countries. The curriculum entitled ‘Three years Postgraduate Programme in Orthodontics: the Final Report of the Erasmus Project' was published 1992. In 2012, the ‘Network of Erasmus Based European Orthodontic Programmes' developed and approved an updated version of the guidelines. The core programme consists of eight sections: general biological and medical subjects; basic orthodontic subjects; general orthodontic subjects; orthodontic techniques; interdisciplinary subjects; management of health and safety; practice management, administration, and ethics; extramural educational activities. The programme goals and objectives are described and the competencies to be reached are outlined. These guidelines may serve as a baseline for programme development and quality assessment for postgraduate programme directors, national associations, and governmental bodies and could assist future residents when selecting a postgraduate programm

Caries outcomes after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances: do lingual brackets make a difference?

Orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances is considered a risk factor for the development of white spot caries lesions (WSL). Traditionally, brackets are bonded to the buccal surfaces. Lingual brackets are developing rapidly and have become more readily available. Buccal surfaces are considered to be more caries prone than lingual surfaces. Furthermore, lingual brackets are shaped to fit the morphology of the teeth and seal almost the entire surface. In the present study we tested the hypothesis that lingual brackets result in a lower caries incidence than buccal brackets. We tested this hypothesis using a split-mouth design where subjects were allocated randomly to a group receiving either buccal or lingual brackets on the maxillary teeth and the alternative bracket type in the mandible. The results indicate that buccal surfaces are more prone to WSL development, especially when WSL existed before treatment. The number of WSL that developed or progressed on buccal surfaces was 4.8 times higher than the number of WSL that developed or progressed on lingual surfaces. When measured using quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF), the increase in integrated fluorescence loss was 10.6 times higher buccally than lingually. We conclude that lingual brackets make a difference when caries lesion incidence is concerned