How long does treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances last? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION There is little agreement on the expected duration of a course of orthodontic treatment; however, a consensus appears to have emerged that fixed appliance treatment is overly lengthy. This has spawned numerous novel approaches directed at reducing the duration of treatment, occasionally with an acceptance that occlusal outcomes may be compromised. The aim of this study was to determine the mean duration and the number of visits required for comprehensive orthodontic treatment involving fixed appliances. METHODS Multiple electronic databases were searched with no language restrictions, authors were contacted as required, and reference lists of potentially relevant studies were screened. Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized prospective studies concerning fixed appliance treatment with treatment duration as an outcome measure were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. RESULTS Twenty-five studies were included after screening: 20 randomized controlled trials and 5 controlled clinical trials. Twenty-two studies were eligible for meta-analysis after quality assessment. The mean treatment duration derived from the 22 included studies involving 1089 participants was 19.9 months (95% confidence interval, 19.58, 20.22 months). Sensitivity analyses were carried out including 3 additional studies, resulting in average duration of treatment of 20.02 months (95% confidence interval, 19.71, 20.32 months) based on data from 1211 participants. The mean number of required visits derived from 5 studies was 17.81 (95% confidence interval, 15.47, 20.15 visits). CONCLUSIONS Based on prospective studies carried out in university settings, comprehensive orthodontic treatment on average requires less than 2 years to complete

Orthodontic trial outcomes: Plentiful, inconsistent, and in need of uniformity? A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The selection of appropriate outcomes that matter to both patients and operators is increasingly appreciated, with core outcome sets in clinical trials gaining in popularity. The first step in core outcome set development is the generation of a list of possible important outcomes based on a scoping literature review. Moreover, outcome heterogeneity is known to detract from the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to identify the range of outcome domains and specific outcome measures in contemporary orthodontic research. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were searched from December 31, 2012, to December 31, 2016, to identify clinical trials of orthodontic interventions, with no language restrictions. Abstracts, eligible full texts, and reference lists were screened, and all reported primary and nonprimary outcomes and methods of measurement were recorded. RESULTS: The search identified 1267 abstracts, of which 189 full-text articles were retrieved, and 164 studies were included in the analysis. A total of 54 outcomes were identified and categorized into 14 outcome domains. The most frequently measured outcomes were patient-reported pain, periodontal health, tooth angulation/inclination changes, and treatment duration, followed by rate of tooth movement and skeletal changes. Outcomes that followed the overall course of treatment were assessed in only 14 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Patient perspectives are increasingly being accounted for in orthodontic trials; however, there is little consistency in outcome selection among them. The identified list of outcomes will be used to inform a ranking exercise with service users and providers to establish an agreed core outcome set for future orthodontic clinical trials.Royal College of Surgeons of England and the British Orthodontic Society, which provided funding through a fellowship for Aliki Tsichlaki (grant number OGDF1A1R)

Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding

Abstract Background To assess patterns of research collaboration in orthodontics and possible relationships with sample size and funding status. Methods Orthodontic randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials published between 2013 and 2017 were identified through electronic searching. The nature of collaboration, author institutions, study setting, sample size, and funding status were assessed. Linear and logistic regression analyses were applied. Results Of 1153 studies, 217 met the selection criteria. The majority of studies were authored by university academics (86%), were conducted in a single centre (71.9%) and in at least one university hospital (68.2%). The number of practice-based trials (10.1%), as well as the involvement of specialist practitioners (5.2%) in co-authorship, was limited. Multi-centred studies within a single country were associated with a significantly larger sample size compared to single-centred trials (P = 0.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 33.59, 106.93). However, authorship collaboration either nationally (odds ratio [OR] 2.37; 95% CI 0.85, 6.57) or internationally across different continents (OR 5.54; 95% CI 0.62, 49.52) did not translate into increased funding. Conclusions Most orthodontic studies were undertaken in university hospital settings within a single country. Collaboration is common in orthodontics but involvement of practice settings remains limited, suggesting a need for stimulation of practice-based research and research partnerships

“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

Development of a core outcome set for orthodontic trials using a mixed-methods approach: Protocol for a multicentre study

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Orthodontic treatment is commonly undertaken in young people, with over 40% of children in the UK needing treatment and currently one third having treatment, at a cost to the National Health Service in England and Wales of £273 million each year. Most current research about orthodontic care does not consider what patients truly feel about, or want, from treatment, and a diverse range of outcomes is being used with little consistency between studies. This study aims to address these problems, using established methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in future clinical trials of orthodontic interventions in children and young people. Methods/design: This is a mixed-methods study incorporating four distinct stages. The first stage will include a scoping review of the scientific literature to identify primary and secondary outcome measures that have been used in previous orthodontic clinical trials. The second stage will involve qualitative interviews and focus groups with orthodontic patients aged 10 to 16 years to determine what outcomes are important to them. The outcomes elicited from these two stages will inform the third stage of the study in which a long-list of outcomes will be ranked in terms of importance using electronic Delphi surveys involving clinicians and patients. The final stage of the study will involve face-to-face consensus meetings with all stakeholders to discuss and agree on the outcome measures that should be included in the final core outcome set. Discussion: This research will help to inform patients, parents, clinicians and commissioners about outcomes that are important to young people undergoing orthodontic treatment. Adoption of the core outcome set in future clinical trials of orthodontic treatment will make it easier for results to be compared, contrasted and combined. This should translate into improved decision-making by all stakeholders involved. Trial registration: The project has been registered on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) website, January 2016

Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard “core” set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery. Methods and Findings: The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival). Conclusion: This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice

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

A systematic review of relative indications and contra-indications for prescribing panoramic radiographs in dental paediatric patients.

PURPOSE To systematically review the evidence of the diagnostic efficacy of panoramic radiographs (PRs) in the following six clinical situations: caries, acute dental infections, dental trauma, dental anomalies, Developmental disorders and pathological conditions in children. The research question posed by the EAPD was: "In which clinical situations and age groups is it indicated/contra-indicated to prescribe PRs in relation to these six clinical situations, in children". METHODS An electronic search of the following databases was conducted: MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Cochrane Health Technology Assessment (HTA), to identify relevant studies published from 1990 to 2018. The systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Study screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment of included studies was carried out independently and in duplicate using the QUADAS 2 tool. RESULTS The search resulted in 3420 potentially relevant studies, and following screening 175 full texts were obtained, of which 16 were finally included in the review. Meta-analysis was not possible for any of the aforementioned clinical situations, therefore the included studies were tabulated in terms of qualitative descriptive hierarchy of evidence for diagnostic. CONCLUSION Based on currently available evidence there is a need for high quality diagnostic accuracy efficacy studies to address important diagnostic tasks in these six clinical situations in children, as there is a lack of scientific evidence concerning PRs in children, as there would support the production of guidelines for prescribing PRs in children along with their relative indications and contra-indications