To establish consensus recommendations for clinicians to manage white spot lesions (WSLs) during orthodontic treatment.
Three task force members reviewed the literature to identify best practices for minimizing WSLs during orthodontic treatment. Each draft statement was read to the task force members by a facilitator, followed by voting, accepting, or editing if necessary. The statements were then sent electronically by an independent third party (Magellan Medical Technology Consultants Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) to a previously formed content validation panel consisting of 20 independent private practitioners and clinical academicians for validation.
Twenty-one statements were developed and sent for content validation. While 19 statements achieved a content validation index (CVI) of 0.78, two items did not. These items were edited by the task force members based on qualitative feedback from content validation participants. Each of these revised statements did achieve a CVI of 0.78 on second evaluation from the content validation panelists and therefore were included in this document.
To reduce the risk of WSLs, it is essential to implement individualized caries management measures based on a comprehensive assessment of the patient\'s oral and systemic health. Effective at-home and professional mechanical and chemical plaque control should be implemented for high-risk orthodontic patients. Fluoride to support prevention and materials such as orthodontic sealants should also be used to provide a physical barrier around the brackets in high-risk patients. By following these guidelines, orthodontic professionals can help promote oral health and minimize the need for restorative treatment.

Survey.
Bracing is the mainstay of conservative treatment in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS). The purpose of this study was to establish best practice guidelines (BPG) among a multidisciplinary group of international bracing experts including surgeons, physiatrists, physical therapists, and orthotists utilizing formal consensus building techniques. Currently, there is significant variability in the practice of brace treatment for AIS and, therefore, there is a strong need to develop BPG for bracing in AIS.
We utilized the Delphi process and the nominal group technique to establish consensus among a multidisciplinary group of bracing experts. Our previous work identified areas of variability in brace treatment that we targeted for consensus. Following a review of the literature, three iterative surveys were administered. Topics included bracing goals, indications for starting and discontinuing bracing, brace types, brace prescription, radiographs, physical activities, and physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises. A face-to-face meeting was then conducted that allowed participants to vote for or against inclusion of each item. Agreement of 80% throughout the surveys and face-to-face meeting was considered consensus. Items that did not reach consensus were discussed and revised and repeat voting for consensus was performed.
Of the 38 experts invited to participate, we received responses from 32, 35, and 34 for each survey, respectively. 11 surgeons, 4 physiatrists, 8 physical therapists, 3 orthotists, and 1 research scientist participated in the final face-to-face meeting. Experts reached consensus on 67 items across 10 domains of bracing which were consolidated into the final best practice recommendations.
We believe that adherence to these BPG will lead to fewer sub-optimal outcomes in patients with AIS by reducing the variability in AIS bracing practices, and provide a framework future research.
Level IV.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify whether there is any relationship between fixed orthodontic appliances and malodor, and if self-ligating brackets (SLBs) prevent malodor better than conventional brackets (CBs).
METHODS: The electronic databases PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to September 2016; a manual search was also performed. Randomized controlled and clinical controlled trials, in which experimental groups received fixed orthodontic therapy and malodor was measured, were included. Patients treated with fixed orthodontic brackets were compared with those without any treatment, and SLB systems were compared with CB systems. Two reviewers independently selected potentially relevant studies, evaluated the risk for bias, extracted essential data, and synthesized findings using Review Manager version 5.3 (Copenhagen: The. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014).
RESULTS: Four studies, involving a total of 152 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Fixed orthodontic appliances caused malodor from the initial visit to 2 to 3 months, but was only significant after the first week (mean difference 20.24 [95% confidence interval [CI]11.75-28.74]; P < .00001). Plaque index, gingival index, and periodontal pocket depths demonstrated no statistical differences between the SLB and CB groups after the first week. However, SLBs significantly controlled malodor better than CBs after the first week (mean difference 4.32 [95% CI 6.02 to 2.61]; P < .00001). The quality of the included studies was relatively low and relevant research in this field is quite scarce.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence base was relatively weak, fixed orthodontic treatment appeared to be a risk factor for malodor, independent of periodontal changes, and SLB systems controlled malodor better than CB systems.

With regard to the best moment for carrying out or recommending dental bleaching to orthodontic patients, some explanations and orientations are given in order to answers the following questions: 1) Why orthodontic treatment completion is considered the best opportunity for carrying out the procedure? 2) Why dental bleaching should not be performed immediately before orthodontic treatment? 3) If that would be possible at any special case, what would that be? 4) Why dental bleaching should not be performed during orthodontic treatment? 5) If that would be possible at any special case, what would that be? This article highlights why it is essential to protect both the mucosa and the cervical region, regardless of the moment when dental bleaching is performed, whether associated with orthodontic treatment or not. The \"how\", \"why\" and \"if\" it is or not convenient to perform dental bleaching before orthodontic treatment are still a matter of clinical suggestion, as it is a procedure that is under analysis, empirical knowledge waiting for scientific proof or disproof! Although tooth enamel has adamantine fluid flowing within it, providing a specific metabolism that is peculiar to its own and which could scientifically explain and base the option of carrying out teeth whitening before and during orthodontic treatment, we must still be very careful.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the adequacy of potential sites for insertion of orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) in the anterior alveolar region (delimited by the first premolars) through a systematic review of studies that used computed tomography (CT) or cone beam CT (CBCT) to assess anatomical hard tissue parameters, such as bone thickness, available space, and bone density.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify all relevant papers published between 1980 and September 2011. An extensive search strategy was performed that included the key words \"computerized (computed) tomography\" and \"mini-implants.\" Information was extracted from the eligible articles for three anatomical areas: maxillary anterior buccal, maxillary anterior palatal, and mandibular anterior buccal. Quantitative data obtained for each anatomical variable under study were evaluated qualitatively with a scoring system.
RESULTS: Of the 790 articles identified by the search, 8 were eligible to be included in the study. The most favorable area for OMI insertion in the anterior maxilla (buccally and palatally) and mandible is between the canine and the first premolar. The best alternative area in the maxilla (buccally) and the mandible is between the lateral incisor and the canine, while in the maxillary palatal area it is between the central incisors or between the lateral incisor and the canine.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there is considerable heterogeneity among studies, there is a good level of agreement regarding the optimal site for OMI placement in the anterior region among investigations of anatomical hard tissue parameters based on CT or CBCT scans. In this context, the area between the lateral incisor and the first premolar is the most favorable. However, interroot distance seems to be a critical factor that should be evaluated carefully.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to analyze patterns of tooth movement and changes of arch dimension by superimposing 3-dimensional (3D) virtual models.
METHODS: The sample consisted of 24 Korean adults with Class I malocclusion and minimal crowding, treated by first premolar extractions, sliding mechanics (0.022-in MBT brackets [3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif] with 0.019 × 0.025-in stainless steel wire) and moderate anchorage. The 3D virtual maxillary casts at pretreatment and posttreatment were superimposed with the best-fit method. Linear and angular variables were measured with 3Txer program (Orapix, Seoul, Korea). Wilcoxon signed rank and Mann-Whitney tests were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the individual tooth movement between the right and left sides (P > 0.05). For the movement of each tooth, the maxillary central incisors (U1), lateral incisors (U2), and canines (U3) were significantly inclined lingually, extruded, and moved posteriorly and laterally. The maxillary second premolar (U5), first molar (U6), and second molar (U7) had significant mesial inward rotation, anterior movement, and contracted toward the midsagittal plane. The ratio of anteroposterior movement between the maxillary anterior and posterior teeth was 5:1. The amounts of contraction in U5, U6, and U7 were 1.4, 1.3, and 1.2 mm, respectively. When the amount of change between the adjacent teeth were compared, the linguoversion in U1 was significantly greater than that of U2. U3 and U5 showed significant opposite movements in all variables. There were differences only in angulation and vertical displacement between U6 and U7.
CONCLUSIONS: Superimposition of 3D virtual models could be a guideline for precise virtual treatment planning.