Evidence-based dentistry
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Jun 2019
CommentOne phase or two phases orthodontic treatment for Class II division 1 malocclusion?
Data sources Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 27 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 27 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 27 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. ⋯ Conclusions Evidence of low to moderate quality suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective for reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment in adolescence. There appear to be no other advantages of providing early treatment when compared to late treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that, compared to no treatment, late treatment in adolescence with functional appliances, is effective for reducing the prominence of upper front teeth.
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Jun 2019
CommentWhat are the best materials to use for the first arch wire in orthodontic treatment?
Data sources Six electronic databases/registries including Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, Embase, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched up to October 2017. No restrictions of language or publication date were set. Study selection Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficiency of initial arch wires to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces in either or both upper and lower arches. ⋯ TNT). The first one did not show meaningful differences while in the second insufficient evidence was identified. Conclusions In general terms there is insufficient evidence that any particular material is clinically superior to any other in regards to alignment rate, pain or root resorption.