[Health relevance of malocclusions and their treatment]

Association between orthodontic treatment and psychosocial factors in adolescents: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Orthodontic treatment is one of the longest and most common medical interventions in adolescence. There are certain inequalities in care leading to risk factors associated with higher rates of untreated tooth malocclusion, resulting in a significant burden on oral health. Little is known about that certain psychosocial and personal risk factors influence the uptake of orthodontic treatment. Therefore, the aim was to explore factors that might influence orthodontic treatment and psychosocial and personal factors in a representative sample in Germany.

METHODS

The data are based on the KiGGS Survey Wave 2, a representative cross-sectional study of children and adolescents in Germany. Sociodemographic data, uptake of orthodontic treatment, parental socioeconomic status, social support, self-efficacy, and perceived health status were collected through a self-reported questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 6599 children and adolescents between 11 and 17 years were included in the analysis. Girls, non-immigrants, children, and adolescents with higher levels of social support, and children and adolescents who have visited a dentist or orthodontist more often in the past 12 months are more likely to have received orthodontic treatment. Among 14- to 17-year-olds, the likelihood of seeking orthodontic treatment is also associated with an increasing parental socioeconomic status (odds ratio 1.07 [95% CI 1.02; 1.14] P = .013).

CONCLUSIONS

Certain protective and risk factors as well as personal and psychosocial factors are associated with orthodontic treatment. This knowledge can be used to determine which individuals should be targeted for need-based care to ensure that health care is provided without over- or undertreatment.

Effect of conventional and self-ligating brackets on periodontal health. Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To compare the effect of conventional brackets and self-ligating brackets on periodontal health.

Material and Methods

A search of information up to October 2022 was carried out in the following electronic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), EMBASE, SciELO and Google Scholar. We included studies that were randomised clinical trials, dealing with conventional brackets and self-ligating brackets and their effect on periodontal health, with no language restriction and no time limit. The Risk of Bias 2 (Rob 2.0) tool was used to determine the risk of bias of the included studies. The information selected from the studies was entered and analysed with RevMan 5.3, using the mean and standard deviation with a 95% confidence interval as a measure. Finally, an analysis was performed using the GRADE system to classify the quality of the evidence and grade the strength of the recommendation.

Results

The preliminary search yielded a total of 399 articles, discarding those that did not meet the selection criteria, leaving only 13 articles. The effect of conventional and self-ligating brackets on periodontal health was determined using periodontal probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI) and bleeding index (BI), showing advantages of self-ligating brackets in PI and BI, and no differences compared to self-ligating brackets in PPD and GI.

Conclusions

Self-ligating brackets probably better preserve periodontal health compared to conventional brackets regarding plaque accumulation and bleeding on probing. Key words:Conventional brackets, self-ligating brackets, periodontal health, orthodontic treatment, systematic review, meta-analysis.

Prevalence of malocclusions in 8- and 9-year-old children in Germany-Results of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (DMS 6)

PURPOSE

Current population-wide data on the prevalence of malocclusions in 8‑ and 9‑year-old children in Germany are not available. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to collect data on the prevalence of malocclusions in 8‑ and 9‑year-old children in Germany. The secondary objective of this study was to use this information to derive the need for orthodontic care provision.

METHODS

This is an oral-epidemiological investigation and social science survey at the national level with a focus on tooth and jaw misalignment. The investigation took place between January and March 2021 at 16 study centers across Germany. All relevant data were available for the 705 study participants and were included in the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Overbite was the most common finding with 88.9%. Also widespread were crowding, with at least 60.9%, and lack of space, with a share of 30.9%. All other indication groups had a share below 10%. Rare (< 1%) were buccal and lingual occlusions and craniofacial abnormalities. The most severe forms of disease (Orthodontic Indication Group [Kieferorthopädische Indikationsgruppen, KIG] grade 5) were overbite (3.2%), open bite malocclusion (1.0%), undershot (0.6%), and craniofacial abnormalities (0.4%). The proportion of study participants who required orthodontic treatment, in accordance with statutory health insurance provider guidelines, was 40.4%. The proportion of study participants in principle requiring orthodontic treatment for medical reasons was 97.5%. Systemic differences in the need for orthodontic care provision relating to gender, region, or social status were not identified.

CONCLUSION

In general, the need for care provision identified in the orthodontic indication groups corresponds to that shown in previous studies. This suggests that the need for orthodontic treatment in Germany has remained stable over the years.

Comparison of orthodontic treatment need and malocclusion prevalence according to KIG, ICON, and mIOTN in German 8- to 9-year-old children of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (DMS 6)

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to compare the malocclusion indices KIG (Kieferorthopädische Indikationsgruppen, Orthodontic Indication Groups), ICON (Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need), and mIOTN (modified Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need) regarding differences in malocclusion prevalence and their assessment of orthodontic treatment need in German 8‑ to 9‑year-old children of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (Deutsche Mundgesundheitsstudie, DMS 6).

METHODS

The necessary data for the calculation of the KIG, mIOTN, and ICON were collected by a dentist as part of a clinical orthodontic examination during the field phase of the DMS 6 and by a subsequent digital orthodontic model-analytical evaluation of intraoral scans of the dental arches and the occlusal situation in habitual occlusion.

RESULTS

Prevalence, severity, and treatment need of tooth and jaw misalignments differed in part considerably depending on the index used for assessment. On the other hand, there were several outcomes which yielded quite similar results for the different indices used, such as orthodontic treatment need, which ranged from 40.4% (KIG) over 41.6% (ICON) to 44.2% (mIOTN). Interestingly, orthodontic treatment need for the individual subject could differ considerably, when assessed using different indices.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the results show that the mIOTN is much more conservative in assessing malocclusion prevalences often being smaller than those derived by KIG or ICON. In contrast, KIG and ICON often yield similar prevalences with certain distinct differences due to discrepancies in the respective definitions and also clearly differentiate between treatment possibility and arbitrarily determined treatment need.