OBJECTIVE: To synthesise the dentoalveolar, periodontal and skeletal changes that occur when using maxillary expansion techniques assisted by temporary anchorage devices compared to conventional protocols.
METHODS: Five databases and grey literature were consulted, up to December 2023, focusing on intervention designs and excluding other type of studies. The quality assessment was conducted by using the adaptation for orthodontics of the CONSORT statement, the guidelines for reporting non-randomised studies, the RoB-2 tool, and the ROBINS-I tool. A descriptive summary and meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 were performed.
RESULTS: Nine clinical trials were included (n=377 patients, mean age 13.2±0.6) with a diagnosis of transverse maxillary deficiency. The analysed studies showed qualitative dentoalveolar and periodontal changes after expansion, which were greater on the maxillary first premolars in tooth-borne appliances. Meta-analyses for some effects were included from two studies (n=64); patients who used tooth-borne appliances had greater effects of buccal intercoronal width between the premolars with statistically significant differences (Std Mean difference 2.34; 95% CI: 0.04-4.65 p=0.05). Conversely, those patients who used bone-borne or hybrid appliances had greater effects of buccal intercoronal width between molars with statistically significant differences (Std Mean difference -0.64; 95% CI: -1.38-0.10; p=0.09).
CONCLUSIONS: According to the studies analysed, all measurements increased in the intervention groups after expansion. Quantitative analyses show different findings at dentoalveolar level when tooth-borne, bone-borne or hybrid appliances are considered. Nevertheless, the results should be taken with caution due to the heterogeneity of the studies. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021283170), with no funding to report.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of distalizing maxillary first molars (U6) by temporary anchorage devices (TADs) according to their location (palatal, buccal, and zygomatic), their number, and appliance design.
METHODS: An electronic search of maxillary molar distalization with TADs was done through April 2023. After study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment, meta-analyses were performed for the extent of distalization, distal tipping, and vertical movement of U6 using the generic inverse variance and random-effects model. The significance level was set at 0.05.
RESULTS: Forty studies met the inclusion criteria: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 13 prospective studies, and 23 retrospective studies (total of 1182 patients). Distalization of the U6 was not significantly greater (P = .64) by palatal (3.74 mm) and zygomatic (3.68 mm) than by buccal (3.23 mm) TADs. Distal tipping was significantly higher (P < .001) in nonrigid (9.84°) than in rigid (1.97°) appliances. Vertical movement was mostly intrusive and higher but not significantly different (P = .28) in zygomatic anchorage (-1.16 mm).
CONCLUSIONS: Distalization of U6 with TADs can be an effective and stable treatment procedure, especially when performed with rigid palatal appliances. However, further RCTs or prospective cohort studies are strongly recommended to provide more clinical evidence.

The primary aim of this study was to provide a review of the types and frequency of orthodontic brackets, molar bands and orthodontic auxiliaries used for patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. The secondary aim was to evaluate the risk of failure of these items during orthognathic surgery.
From three Dutch hospitals, 124 adult patients were included in this prospective cohort study. Five independent researchers collected the data during surgery using a specifically created data extraction form. The type of surgery, surgeon, orthodontist and type of orthodontic bracket, molar band or auxiliary were noted for each tooth. To evaluate their failure risk, the following variables were noted: failure and site; and type and cause of failure.
Stainless-steel brackets were the most frequently (75.8%) used bracket type seen in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. Ceramic brackets were seen in 24.2% of the cases and were only applied in the anterior region. Molar bands were present in 58.9% of the patients and mostly with bands on the first molars in combination with bonded tubes on the second molars. In 32.2% of all cases, one or more failures were noted. One-third of all failures were described as detachment of the molar tube on the most posterior molar. Kobayashi ligatures and powerpins showed the highest risk of failure (odds ratio [OR] 3.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.91-7.15). No significant difference in failure rate was found between stainless-steel brackets, molar bands (OR 0.34, 95% CI = 0.08-1.43) and ceramic brackets (OR 0.44, 95% CI = 0.14-1.45).
Stainless-steel brackets, ceramic brackets, molar bands and surgical hooks are suitable for orthognathic cases. Kobayashi ligatures and powerpins had a significantly higher risk of failure so are not recommended for temporary intraoperative maxillomandibular fixation (TIO-MMF).

To evaluate the treatment effects and post-treatment stability of the maxillary total arch distalization using TADs during the non-extraction treatment of class II malocclusions.
Study involved an electronic search followed by hand searching for randomized and non-randomized clinical studies about maxillary total arch distalization using TADs. After data extraction and risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis was performed for dental, skeletal and soft tissue changes using the Generic-inverse variance approach by use of the mean difference and random-effect model.
In total, 1788 articles were identified, 88 full texts were screened and 22 studies were found eligible; 17 of them were included in the quantitative analysis. The means of distalization/distal tipping of the maxillary first molar were 4mm/3.17° in adults, 3.95mm/1.61° in adolescents after treatment with the Modified C-Palatal plate (MCPP), while they were 2.44mm/2.91° with the inter-radicular mini-screws. Both MCPP\'s treatment in adults and inter-radicular mini-screws resulted in significant intrusion of U6 (1.64 and 0.75mm, respectively), while insignificant extrusion of U6 was resulted in adolescents treated by MCPP. MCPP appliances resulted in palatal inclination/extrusion of maxillary incisors U1 (6.77°/2mm in adults, 7.46°/3.14mm in adolescents). In contrast, inter-radicular mini-screws resulted in less palatal less amount of palatal inclination/insignificant intrusion of U1 (2.42°/0.14mm). MCPP treatment also resulted in significant changes in the skeletal measurements (SNA, ANB, occlusal and mandibular planes). Insignificant differences were found between subgroups in the retraction amount of maxillary incisors, as well as the upper and lower lips. In the follow-up of adolescents treated with MCPP, a significant amount of mesial movement, mesial tipping, and extrusion (2.94mm, 2.84°, and 3.94mm, respectively) was found. However, skeletal and occlusal corrections of the Class II relationship were maintained.
Maxillary total arch distalization using TADs can be an effective and stable treatment procedure. However, RCTs or prospective cohort studies are highly recommended to establish a clinical evidence regarding their efficiency.

UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the efficacy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology in interventions implemented in orthodontics.
UNASSIGNED: A scoping review of scientific evidence was accomplished, involving different databases. MesH terms and keywords were provided to examine clinical trials (CTs) in all languages. Exclusively CTs that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were admitted.
UNASSIGNED: Eight CTs were chosen. These experiments evaluated 542 patients. Four CTs compared the computer-aided indirect bonding method versus the traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Three CTs compared CAD/CAM retainers with other types of retainers, and one CT compared the CAD/CAM group with multistranded stainless steel wires versus stainless steel wires. Regarding the efficacy of the interventions with CAD/CAM technology used in orthodontics, variable results were found. The indirect bonded customized CAD/CAM brackets presented just a slight effect on the treatment efficacy and therapy results. Two CTs showed that an indirect bonding self-ligating standard system had a similar quality of therapy in comparison with the CAD/CAM customized bracket system. Concerning the clinical failure rate, no differences were presented between the CAD/CAM retainer and other retainers. A CAD/CAM system had more loose brackets than a noncustomized system and was observed also a greater amount of immediate debonding with CAD/CAM indirect bonding than with direct bonding. CAD/CAM fixed retainers revealed inferior relapse and fewer failures than lab-based and conventional chairside retainers. No changes between treatment groups were observed regarding the total therapy time, amount of appointments, and quantity of archwire bends.
UNASSIGNED: In general terms, no greater efficacy of CAD/CAM technology was observed over traditional therapies used in orthodontics. However, it was found that gingival inflammation and the accumulation of bacterial plaque and dental calculus were lower when CAD/CAM retainers were used. When comparing interventions that include CAD/CAM systems with conventional therapies, no significant reduction in care times was found.

To test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in treatment efficiency between therapies undertaken with conventional (CBs), passive self-ligating (PSLBs) or active self-ligating (ASLBs) brackets.
An electronic search was performed in 3 data bases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) from their origin up to January 2019. Additional references were hand searched. Search was strictly restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and split-mouth design studies (SMDs). RCTs and SMDs were initially processed separately and subsequently combined in a network meta-analysis. The following variables were evaluated: treatment duration, number of visits, occlusal outcomes, alignment rate, transverse arch dimensional changes, incisor position modification, rate of space closure, anchorage loss, bond failure, root resorption, perception of discomfort during the initial phase of alignment, time to ligate in or to untie an archwire, periodontal variables, quality of life.
On 229 papers, 30 RCTs and 9 SMDs were finally included in this study. Out of 85 comparisons, 16 only revealed statistically significant differences. It was quicker to untie and ligate an 0.014 NiTi arch from/in 6 ASLBs anterior ceramic brackets compared to 6 ceramic CBs. It was also more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025 SS wire in/from PSLB\'s brackets compared to CB\'s attachments. Compared to conventional brackets, there was less maxillary incisor proclination with PSLBs in non-extraction cases. Moreover, there was less bleeding on probing 4-5 weeks after bonding with PSLBs compared to CBs brackets. The only significant difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. The network meta-analysis revealed that IMPA was greater in extractions cases with CBs compared with both ASLBs (+2,5°) and PSLBs (+1,6°).
The vast majority of the studied variables did not show any significant differences between the three types of brackets. The most significant findings were that it was quicker to insert and remove archwires from ASLBs compared to CBs, and it was more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025\" stainless steel wire in/from PSLBs compared to CBs. The major difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. Most of the claims put forward by the suppliers were not substantiated by our network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic retention aims to maintain optimal teeth positions after active treatment. The stability is affected by numerous factors, including patients\' individual features, thus retention should be adjusted in the most optimal way. Bonding a retainer makes retention less dependent on patient\'s compliance.
UNASSIGNED: What wire or fiber splint type provides the best treatment stability? What materials should be used to bond the wire or fiber splint? Should be the bonding procedure be direct or indirect? The aim of the study is to assess and synthesize available controlled trials investigating failures of fixed retainers.
METHODS: Literature searches of free text and MeSH terms were performed in Scopus, Web of Science, Embase and PubMed Central in order to find studies, referring to failures of fixed retention (12th February 2021). The keywords were: (\"orthodontic retainers AND failure AND wire\"). The framework of this systematic review according to PICO was: Population: orthodontic patients; Intervention: fixed orthodontic retainer bonding; Comparison: Different protocols of fixed orthodontic retention applied; Outcomes: failure rate, survival rate. Three different specific scales from the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook were used, according to each study type. Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of retention using fiber reinforced composite and multistranded steel wire.
RESULTS: The search identified 177 potential articles: 114 from PubMed, 41 from Scopus, 20 from Web of Science and 2 from Embase. After excluding studies inconsistent with selection criteria, 21 studies were included and subjected to qualitative analysis. The main outcome investigated was failure rate. This systematic review has some potential limitations due to the heterogeneity of design between included studies.
CONCLUSIONS: No retainer is proved to guarantee a perfect stability of dental alignment. The retainer should be bonded to all adherent teeth, preferably with additional use of bonding resin. No wire or fiber splint present superior characteristics concerning failure rate. Fiber reinforced composite retention is more sensitive to operator skills, and with imperfect bonding technique, failure rate is much higher. During the first 6 months after bonding retainer the patient should be under frequent control. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO database with the number CRD42021233406.

Background and Objectives: Palatal expansion is a common orthodontic technique able to increase the transverse changes for subjects with constricted maxillary arches. The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate through a systematic review the tomography effectiveness of different palatal expander approaches. Materials and Methods: The database used to perform the screening and determine the eligibility of the clinical papers was PubMed (Medline). Results: The database search included a total of 284 results, while 271 articles were excluded. A total of 14 articles were included for the qualitative assessment. Conclusions: The effectiveness of the present studies reported that skeletal expansion was a useful approach to increase the transverse changes for subjects with constricted maxillary arches.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the treatment effects (amount of distalization, distal tipping and vertical movement) of buccally versus palatally placed temporary skeletal anchorage devices (TSADs) on maxillary first molars during distalization.
METHODS: Medline and Scopus databases were searched up to September 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized prospective cohort studies on maxillary molar distalization using TSADs in patients with Class II malocclusion. After study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, meta-analyses were performed for the amount of distalization, distal tipping and intrusion of first molars.
RESULTS: Nine studies (2 RCTs and 7 prospective studies) were included. The risk of bias of the RCTs was low to unclear. The non-randomized studies were of moderate quality. In five studies, the TSADs were placed in the infrazygomatic process while in two studies, they were placed in the buccal inter-radicular spaces, and in two studies, they were placed in the midpalatal region. The first molar distalization was 2.75 mm when buccal inter-radicular TSADs were used, but 4.07 and 4.17 mm with palatal and infrazgomatic TSADs. The palatal appliances were associated with 11.17° of distal tipping of the first molar while infrazygomatic and buccal inter-radicular TSADs resulted in 3.99° and 1.70° of tipping, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Inter-radicular TSADs resulted in less distal tipping but also in less distalization. Palatal TSAD-supported appliances showed the greatest amount of distal tipping. Further RCTs or prospective studies on the effect of various designs of TSAD-supported distalization are warranted.

The miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expander (MARPE) has extended not only skeletal effects with fewer dental changes and but also the age limit of nonsurgical maxillary expansion treatment. Amid its gaining popularity in clinical orthodontics, our current understanding of treatment effectiveness, efficiency, and stability needs to be reassessed. In this review article, the authors have attempted to evaluate MARPE from various aspects with a focus on recent studies.