BACKGROUND: External apical root resorption (EARR) is a frequently observed adverse event in patients undergoing fixed appliance therapy. Assessing the patients\' risk during treatment is important, as certain factors are assumed to be associated with an increased likelihood of occurrence. However, their predictive value remains limited, making evidence-based clinical decision-making challenging for orthodontists. To address this issue, the Dutch Association of Orthodontists (NvVO) developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for EARR in accordance with the AGREE II instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) in 2018. The aim of this study is to get insight into the actual utilization and the practical implementation of the guideline among orthodontists. The hypothesis to be tested was that after its introduction, clinical practice for EARR has changed towards the recommendations in the CPG.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of the 2018 clinical practice guidelines for EARR among orthodontists 3 years after its introduction.
METHODS: A questionnaire using a 7-point Likert scale was developed concerning four domains of EARR described in the guideline. The questionnaire was piloted, finalised, and then distributed digitally among Dutch orthodontists. REDCap was used for data collection, starting with an invitation email in June 2021, followed by two reminders. Effect was tested by the Mann-Whitney U test, and the influence of demographic variables was analysed.
RESULTS: Questionnaires were sent out to all 275 and completed by 133 (response rate 48%); N = 59 females and N = 73 males were included; 81% had their training in the Netherlands, 89% had ≥ 6 years of work experience, and 89% worked in private orthodontic practice. One hundred thirty orthodontists (98.5%) reported changes in clinical practice. The biggest positive change in clinical behaviour regarding EARR occurred if EARR was diagnosed during treatment. Sex, clinical experience, country of specialist training, and working environment of the respondents did not affect clinical practices regarding EARR.
CONCLUSIONS: This questionnaire demonstrated that, 3 years after introduction of the guideline, orthodontists improved their self-reported clinical practices to a more standardised management of root resorption. None of the demographic predictors had a significant effect on the results.

This article summarises recently updated guidelines produced by the Clinical Governance Directorate of the British Orthodontic Society through the Clinical Standards Committee of the Faculty of Dental Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons of England (FDSRCS) on the management of unerupted maxillary incisor teeth in children. The maxillary incisor teeth usually erupt in the early mixed dentition but eruption disturbances can occur and are often attributable to local factors. A failure of eruption will affect the developing occlusion and potentially influence psychological development of the child. The general principles of management for delayed eruption or impaction of these teeth is to ensure that adequate space exists in the dental arch and to remove any obstruction to eruption. Consideration should also be given to further promoting eruption through surgical exposure of the incisor, with or without subsequent orthodontic traction. A number of factors influence the decision-making process, including patient age, medical history, potential compliance, aetiology and position of the unerupted incisor. Treatment planning should be complemented by careful clinical assessment and the use of appropriate special investigations. To optimise the treatment outcome a multidisciplinary specialist approach is recommended.

BACKGROUND: White spot lesions (WSLs) occur as a side effect in over 25 % of patients who undergo orthodontic treatment, causing aesthetic problems and a risk of deeper enamel and dentine lesions. Dutch orthodontists show substantial variation in their application of WSL preventive measures, which include little incorporation of evidence from the literature. We recently developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline (CPG) on this topic, which was further converted into a computerized clinical decision support system (CDSS) to facilitate its incorporation into clinical practice. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of this CPG-based CDSS, with regard to actually preventing WSL development during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances compared to usual preventive measures. Our study also aimed to evaluate the effects of implementing the CPG-based CDSS into routine clinical practice using a multifaceted strategy.
METHODS: We designed a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study assessing both clinical effectiveness of the CPG and its implementation into routine practice. A total of 840 patients nested in 14 orthodontic practices will be randomly assigned as clusters to the intervention or the control arm. Patients recruited by the orthodontist in the intervention group will be treated following the CPG, while the usual preventative measures will be followed in the control arm. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with newly formed or enlarged WSLs after 6-9 months of treatment with fixed appliances, and at the end of treatment, using the CPG for WSL prevention compared with usual preventive measures. An additional aim is to obtain some preliminary outcomes regarding the implementation process.
CONCLUSIONS: This study investigates the effectiveness of a newly developed guideline to improve oral health during orthodontic treatment, while simultaneously illuminating potential difficulties in adopting a guideline in general orthodontic practice. The innovative features of this study include the risk-based CDSS that discriminates between patients\' oral health statuses with regard to preventive measure utilization in general orthodontic practices. Most studies focusing on WSL prevention apply the preventive intervention to each patient in an experimental setting, resulting in overtreatment and a disconnect from the real-world conditions in which the intervention is to be applied. Additionally, one of the overreaching goals of this initiative is to create a gold standard for WSL prevention during orthodontic treatment, against which future studies can compare new promising preventive measures and the readiness of clinicians to change and adopt new treatments. By doing so, we want to help bridge the gap between science and orthodontic clinical practice and improve the quality of oral health care.
BACKGROUND: This trial is registered with the Dutch Trial Registry of the Dutch Cochrane Center under number NTR5012 , registration date 2 March 2015.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to provide a concise overview about the principles of pre-implant orthodontic extrusion, describe methods and techniques available and provide the clinicians with guidelines about its application.
METHODS: A number of reports describe orthodontic extrusion as a reliable method for pre-implant site enhancement. However, no standard protocols have been provided about the application of this technique. The literature database was searched for studies involving implant site enhancement by means of orthodontic extrusion. Information about the principles, indications and contraindications of this method, type of anchorage, force and time were obtained from the literature.
RESULTS: Despite that the scarce data is largely limited to case reports and case series, implant site enhancement by means of orthodontic extrusion seems to be a promising option to improve soft and hard tissue conditions prior to implant placement.
CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic extrusion is being implemented as a treatment alternative to enhance hard and soft tissue prior to implant placement. While the current literature does not provide clear guidelines, the decision making for a specific approach seems to be based on the clinician\'s preferences. Clinical studies are needed to verify the validity of this treatment option.

Dental materials or components of orthodontics devices can fall into a patient\'s oropharynx, and be swallowed or inhaled. In this paper a short review of accidental foreign body ingestion/aspiration prevention, evaluation, and relevant incident management guidelines are presented. In addition, a case of an accidentally swallowed piece of archwire during a chair side procedure is reported.

The purpose of this review is to provide guidelines for the use of oral appliances (OAs) for the treatment of snoring and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in Australia. A review of the scientific literature up to June 2012 regarding the clinical use of OAs in the treatment of snoring and OSA was undertaken by a dental and medical sleep specialists team consisting of respiratory sleep physicians, an otolaryngologist, orthodontist, oral and maxillofacial surgeon and an oral medicine specialist. The recommendations are based on the most recent evidence from studies obtained from peer reviewed literature. Oral appliances can be an effective therapeutic option for the treatment of snoring and OSA across a broad range of disease severity. However, the response to therapy is variable. While a significant proportion of subjects have a near complete control of the apnoea and snoring when using an OA, a significant proportion do not respond, and others show a partial response. Measurements of baseline and treatment success should ideally be undertaken. A coordinated team approach between medical practitioner and dentist should be fostered to enhance treatment outcomes. Ongoing patient follow-up to monitor treatment efficacy, OA comfort and side effects are cardinal to long-term treatment success and OA compliance.

METHODS: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in adults.
METHODS: This guideline is based on published literature from 1966 to September 2010 that was identified by using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. A supplemental MEDLINE search identified additional articles through October 2012. Searches were limited to English-language publications. The clinical outcomes evaluated for this guideline included cardiovascular disease (such as heart failure, hypertension, stroke, and myocardial infarction), type 2 diabetes, death, sleep study measures (such as the Apnea-Hypopnea Index), measures of cardiovascular status (such as blood pressure), measures of diabetes status (such as hemoglobin A1c levels), and quality of life. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations using ACP\'s clinical practice guidelines grading system.
CONCLUSIONS: ACP recommends that all overweight and obese patients diagnosed with OSA should be encouraged to lose weight. (Grade: strong recommendation; low-quality evidence)
CONCLUSIONS: ACP recommends continuous positive airway pressure treatment as initial therapy for patients diagnosed with OSA. (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence)
CONCLUSIONS: ACP recommends mandibular advancement devices as an alternative therapy to continuous positive airway pressure treatment for patients diagnosed with OSA who prefer mandibular advancement devices or for those with adverse effects associated with continuous positive airway pressure treatment. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence).

Diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) is based on the patient history, clinical examination and sleep study. Untreated OSAS increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases, traffic accidents, lost work days and mortality. Weight loss forms the basis of treatment in obese patients. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy is the treatment of choice in moderate/severe cases of OSAS. In selected cases, oral appliances or surgical treatment are of benefit.

暂无摘要。

This article is a critical analysis from a medico-legal perspective of some current authoritative UK clinical guidelines in orthodontics. Two clinical guidelines have been produced by the Royal College of Surgeons of England and four by the British Orthodontic Society. Each guideline is published with the analysis immediately following it. Following recent UK case law (Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority, 1997) which allows the courts to choose between two bodies of responsible expert medical opinion where they feel one opinion is not \'logical\', it is likely that the UK courts will increasingly turn to authoritative clinical guidelines to assist them in judging whether or not an appropriate standard of care has been achieved in medical negligence cases. It is thus important for clinicians to be aware of the recommendations of such guidelines, and if these are not followed the reasons should be discussed with the patient and recorded in the clinical case notes. This article attempts to highlight aspects of the guidelines that have medico-legal implications.