BACKGROUND: Metallic and elastomeric ligatures are widely used in orthodontics to secure the archwire within the bracket slots, but elastomeric ligatures have traditionally been associated with increased microbial colonization, which could adversely affect periodontal health.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review compares the periodontal effects of elastomeric and steel ligatures used for orthodontic fixed appliances.
METHODS: Unrestricted literature search of 7 databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Virtual Health Library) up to July 2023 were performed for randomized / non-randomized clinical studies on humans comparing the two ligation methods during fixed-appliance therapy. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment with the Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 or the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, random-effects meta-analyses of Mean Differences (MD) or Standardized Mean Differences (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were carried out, followed by assessment of certainty of existing evidence with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS: A total of 11 studies (3 randomized / 8 non-randomized) with 354 patients (mean age 14.7 years and 42% male) were included. No statistically significant differences were seen for plaque index (5 studies; SMD = 0.48; 95% CI = -0.03 to 1.00; P = 0.07), gingival index (2 studies; MD = 0.01; 95% CI = -0.14 to 0.16; P = 0.89), probing pocket depth (2 studies; MD = 0; 95% CI = -0.17 to 0.16; P = 0.97), or Streptococcus mutans counts (4 studies; SMD = 0.40; 95% CI=-0.41 to 1.20; P = 0.21). Elastomeric ligatures were associated with moderately increased total bacterial load (3 studies; SMD = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.76; P = 0.03). Confidence in these estimates was low in all instances due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies with high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Existing low quality evidence indicates that ligature method does not seem to influence the periodontal health during fixed treatment, even if elastomeric ligatures are associated with a moderate increase of bacterial load.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO (CRD42023444383).

Orthodontic treatments, while essential for achieving optimal oral health, present challenges in infection control due to the propensity for bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on orthodontic appliances. Silver-coated orthodontic materials have emerged as a promising solution, leveraging the potent antimicrobial properties of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs). Antibacterial coatings are used in orthodontics to prevent the formation of bacterial biofilms. This systematic review evaluated the literature on antimicrobial silver coatings on fixed orthodontic appliances, including archwires, brackets, and microimplants. Two evaluators, working independently, rigorously conducted a comprehensive search of various databases, including PubMed, PubMed Central, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. This systematic review comprehensively examined in vitro studies investigating the antimicrobial efficacy of silver-coated orthodontic archwires, brackets, and microimplants. The review registered in PROSPERO CRD42024509189 synthesized findings from 18 diverse studies, revealing consistent and significant reductions in bacterial adhesion, biofilm formation, and colony counts with the incorporation of AgNPs. Key studies demonstrated the effectiveness of silver-coated archwires and brackets against common oral bacteria, such as Streptococcus mutans and Staphylococcus aureus. Microimplants coated with AgNPs also exhibited notable antimicrobial activity against a range of microorganisms. The systematic review revealed potential mechanisms underlying these antimicrobial effects, highlighted implications for infection prevention in orthodontic practice, and suggested future research avenues. Despite some study heterogeneity and limitations, the collective evidence supports the potential of silver-coated orthodontic materials in mitigating bacterial complications, emphasizing their relevance in advancing infection control measures in orthodontics.

OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise and assess the currently observed evidence about the difference in orthodontic treatment duration between clear aligners and fixed appliances in crowding cases.
METHODS: An electronic search without limitations was conducted from inception to June 2023 covering nine databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Trip, CINAHL via EBSCO, EMBASE via OVID and ProQuest. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and matched non-randomized studies were included in this systematic review. Risk of Bias was assessed via Cochrane\'s tool (RoB 2) for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was employed to evaluate the overall quality of evidence.
RESULTS: Out of the 3537 articles initially identified, ten eligible studies were included in this systematic review; six were RCTs. Only one study offered extraction-based treatment, while the other nine adopted non-extraction treatments. According to the GRADE, there is low evidence that treatment duration in mild to moderate crowding cases with clear aligners is similar to that in fixed orthodontic appliances. Meta-analysis was not administered due to high inconsistency.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on currently available information, there was no significant difference in the treatment duration between the CA and FA groups in mild to moderate crowding cases. Further well-performed RCTs, especially in severe cases, are required.
CONCLUSIONS: Time efficiency is an essential outcome measure for clinical orthodontic practice. While the type of appliance used is a critical determinant of treatment duration, orthodontists should be aware of other factors that can significantly impact treatment time, such as patient and treatment-related factors.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic retainers are widely used to prevent relapses after orthodontic treatment; however, evidence about patients\' perceptions of retainers is lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To assess patients\' perception of orthodontic retainers.
METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, LIVIVO, Cochrane Library, and gray literature (Google Scholar) were searched without date or language restrictions. A manual search of the reference lists of the included articles was also performed.
METHODS: Studies comparing patients\' perceptions of wearing orthodontic retainers were included.
METHODS: According to the study design, the risk of bias (RoB) assessment was performed using RoB 2.0 or ROBINS-I. The level of evidence was assessed through the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tool.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria. After the RoB assessment, 12 randomized controlled trials presented a high RoB, and 4 non-randomized controlled trials presented a moderate RoB. The certainty of evidence was classified as very low for the four assessed outcomes. The studies generally reported an initial temporary negative impact of orthodontic retainers. Different esthetic, functional, and ease-of-use advantages are reported using removable and fixed retainers. A quantitative analysis was not performed due to the considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity among the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence, although very limited, suggests that orthodontic retainers have an initial negative impact related to discomfort and functional limitations, but they seem to regress over time. There is a preference for thermoplastic over Hawley-type retainers. However, thermoplastic retainers cause different functional difficulties, and bonded retainers present the advantage of affecting speech function less than orthodontic removable retainers, although they can facilitate oral hygiene problems.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO (CRD42022306665).

This study aimed to compare the pain intensity and impacts on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) between orthodontic patients treated with clear aligners (CAs) and fixed appliances (FAs).
A systematic search was conducted up to December 2022 using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) comparing pain intensity or OHRQoL between patients treated with CAs and FAs were included. The risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB tool 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Further, meta-analyses were separately conducted for each included study using the total oral health impact profile (OHIP)-14 and visual analog scale (VAS) scores to evaluate OHRQoL and pain intensity, respectively.
Overall, 12 studies (5 RCTs and 7 non-RCTs) were included in the study. Subgroup analyses conducted according to the total OHIP-14 scores revealed that patients treated with CAs had higher OHRQoL at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months of the treatment. Meanwhile, subgroup analyses conducted according to the VAS scores revealed that pain levels were lower in the CA group only at 3 and 4 days of the treatment.
Patients treated with clear aligners had higher OHRQoL than those treated with fixed appliances during orthodontic treatment. However, OHRQoL appeared to be similar between the two groups at the end of the treatment. Moreover, patients treated with clear aligners experienced lesser pain than those treated with fixed appliances on the third and fourth day after the initial treatment. The difference in pain intensity between the two treatment modalities was not noted at other time points.

To systematically assess the scientific literature for the prevalence of failure rate of fixed orthodontic bonded retainer (FOBR).
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective non-RCTs involving participants who had FOBR fitted were included. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of science, MEDLINE, and EMBASE via OVID were searched from inception to January 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. The main outcome was the failure rate of FOBRs. The secondary outcome was to identify factors that can influence the failure of FOBR. Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were undertaken using Revman, version5.4. A random-effects model was used. Quality assessment using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
Thirty-four studies (25 RCTs and 9 prospective clinical studies) (3484 participants) were included in this review. The overall failure rate of bonded retainers, after excluding high-risk studies, was 35.22% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.46-42.98). The failure rate is increased with the duration of follow up; with short-term follow-up rate 24.18% (95% CI 20.16-28.21), medium-term follow up 40.09% (95% CI 30.92-49.26), and long-term follow up 53.85% (95% CI 40.31-67.39). There is a low level of evidence to suggest there is no statistically significant difference in the failure rate of fixed retainers using direct versus indirect bonding methods, using liquid resin versus without liquid resin, and fibre-reinforced composite retainers compared to multi-stranded stainless steel retainers.
There is low-quality evidence to suggest that the failure rate of FOBR is relatively high. There is a need for high-quality, well-reported clinical studies to assess factors that can influence the failure rate of FOBR.
CRD42021190910.

The effect of probiotics on oral health maintenance in orthodontic patients remains controversial. The aim of the study is to systematically review and assess the effects of probiotics on the oral health and microbiome of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.
Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global databases were searched from their inception until June 2022. Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects of probiotics on clinical and microbial outcomes in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were included.
Data screening and collection were performed, and the risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The meta-analysis evaluated the effects of probiotics on Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacillus counts. The quality of the evidence from the meta-analyses was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
A total of 405 records were identified, of which 15 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and 4 in the meta-analysis. The patients in all the included studies were treated with fixed orthodontic appliances. Results regarding clinical outcomes were controversial; four out of five studies reported no significant changes in plaque in the probiotic group (P > .05), and two out of three studies reported no significant changes in the gingival index (P > .05). Regarding microbial outcomes, the meta-analysis results revealed that probiotics significantly increased the likelihood of reducing the abundance of S. mutans to below 105 CFU/ml (risk ratio: 2.05 [1.54, 2.72], P < .001) and reduced the likelihood of increasing the abundance of S. mutans to beyond 106 CFU/ml (risk ratio: 0.48 [0.28, 0.83], P = .009). However, the quality of evidence according to the GRADE was moderate.
There is insufficient evidence to determine the clinical benefits of probiotics as a supplement for the oral health of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. However, probiotics may have benefits in reducing the salivary S. mutans counts in orthodontic patients.
PROSPERO (CRD42022366650).

Comparing computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) fixed retainers and conventional fixed retainers for their effectiveness in orthodontic patients using systematic review and meta-analysis of literature.
A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane\'s CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Ovid, and LILACS up to May 2023, with no language or date restrictions.
Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that complied with PICO questions were included, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
Using custom-piloted forms, relevant data were retrieved from the included studies. Then a random-effects inverse variance meta-analysis was used to pool the results. Primary outcomes were stability of treatment results measured through dental cast measurements and periodontal status, while secondary outcomes were failure rates and patient-reported outcomes.
Seven RCTs with 601 participants were included in the review. In the short term (≤6 months), the meta-analysis showed no significant differences in inter-canine distance or arch length between CAD/CAM and conventional fixed retainers in mandibular retainers. However, for Little\'s irregularity index, single-stranded stainless-steel retainers were notably worse than Ni-Ti CAD/CAM retainers at 3 and 6 months, while multi-stranded stainless-steel retainers only diverged from CAD/CAM at the 6-month milestone, despite the overall clinical inconsequence of these changes. CAD/CAM retainers were associated with a lower plaque index than traditional retainers but no significant difference in gingival index. Failure rates did not differ significantly between CAD/CAM and other types of retainers in mandibular retainers. Nonetheless, one study had a high amount of CAD/CAM retainer failures leading to the study being stopped.
In the short term, CAD/CAM fixed retainers show promise as an alternative to traditional retainers. They may enhance periodontal health, as indicated by lower plaque index scores than conventional retainers. However, extensive research is needed to determine the long-term durability and effectiveness of CAD/CAM retainers in orthodontic treatment, particularly regarding their failure rate. Until comprehensive evidence is available, the use of CAD/CAM retainers should be tailored for each case.
The protocol for this systematic review was registered at PROSPERO with the ID CRD42023412741.

Fluoride varnish (FV) is an established technology for primary and secondary caries prevention.
The aim of this review was to evaluate the preventive effect of FV on development of white spot lesions (WSL) when regularly applied during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances.
We searched PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar up to October 2022 using predetermined keywords.
We included randomized controlled trials of a duration of minimum 12 months and at least quarterly FV applications.
Based on abstracts, we retrieved full-text papers, extracted key outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcome was prevalence of WSLs on subject level after debonding. We conducted a narrative synthesis and pooled comparable outcome data in a random effects model.
We included seven studies covering 666 patients and assessed four publications with low or moderate risk of bias and three with high. The prevalence of WSLs at debonding varied between 12 and 55%. All studies presented results in favour for the FV intervention, one reached statistical significance on subject level. Five studies provided data for a meta-analysis. The pooled risk ratio was 0.64 [95% CI: 0.42, 0.98], indicating a statistically significant preventive effect. Certainty of evidence was graded as very low after reducing for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.
We pooled data on subject level and did not consider lesion severity on tooth level.
Even if the certainty of evidence was very low, it was shown that FV can prevent development of WSL when regularly applied during orthodontic treatment. Larger investigations reporting a core outcome set are required to increase the certainty of evidence.
PROSPERO database (CRD42022370062).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the pain profile of patients in the levelling/alignment phase of orthodontic treatment, as reported from randomized clinical trials.
METHODS: Five databases were searched in September 2022 for randomized clinical trials assessing pain during levelling/alignment with a visual analogue scale (VAS). After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by subgroup/meta-regression, and certainty analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 37 randomized trials including 2277 patients (40.3% male; mean age 17.5 years) were identified. Data indicated quick pain initiation after insertion of orthodontic appliances (n = 6; average = 12.4 mm VAS), a quick increase to a peak at day 1 (n = 29; average = 42.4 mm), and gradually daily decrease the first week until its end (n = 23; average = 9.0 mm). Every second patient reported analgesic use at least once this week (n = 8; 54.5%), with peak analgesic use at 6 h post-insertion (n = 2; 62.3%). Patients reported reduced pain in the evening compared to morning (n = 3; MD =  - 3.0 mm; 95%CI =  - 5.3, - 0.6; P = 0.01) and increased pain during chewing (n = 2; MD = 19.2 mm; 95% CI = 7.9, 30.4; P < 0.001) or occlusion of the back teeth (n = 2; MD = 12.4 mm; 95% CI = 1.4, 23.4; P = 0.3), while non-consistent effects were seen for patient age, sex, irregularity, or analgesic use. Subgroup analyses indicated increased pain among extraction cases and during treatment of the lower (rather than the upper) arch, while certainty around estimates was moderate to high.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicated a specific pain profile during orthodontic levelling/alignment, without signs of consistent patient-related influencing factors.