Agreement between adolescents and parents or caregivers in rating adolescents' quality of life during orthodontic treatment

Enhancing Orthodontic Renewal and Retention Techniques: A Systematic Review

Orthodontists have a variety of options available for retainers. Research in Orthodontics focuses on assessing outcomes important to clinicians; however, there is inconsistency in how these outcomes are selected and evaluated. This review sought to assess the effects of different orthodontic retainers on patients' quality of life (QoL). Various approaches were employed in this systematic review, and a thorough search was conducted across six databases. The review involved a comprehensive evaluation of six included studies, highlighting changes in dental structure post-treatment, emphasizing the role of extraction procedures and the quality of debonding in improving retention. The study identified key outcomes for orthodontic clinical trials, highlighting orthodontists' preferences for specific retainer types. Moreover, it discussed the impact of sociocultural influences on retention care. Involving patients actively in discussions about whether to end or extend the retention phase was deemed essential. Noteworthy improvements in occlusal outcomes were linked to extraction treatments. Gender and malocclusion severity influenced QoL before and after orthodontic treatment. The degree of improvement observed in the Class III malocclusion group was comparatively lower than that in the Class I and Class II groups. Orthodontic treatment was found to yield favorable psychological outcomes, as evidenced by notable enhancements in self-esteem and social engagement among individuals. Fixed appliances were shown to negatively affect oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), particularly for those with aesthetic and functional concerns. A consensus has been reached on the essential themes and outcomes that should be incorporated in clinical trials related to orthodontic retention for non-cleft and non-surgical cases.

Assessment of food consumption changes in adolescents during orthodontic treatment

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the changes in food consumption in adolescents during orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

Twenty-five adolescents aged between 12 and 18 years participated in the study. Before the treatment, the participants were interviewed, and their food consumption frequency and 24-hour retrospective food consumption records were taken. Participants were followed up for 3 months, that is, in the first, fourth, and 12th week of the treatment. In the interviews, questions about food consumption changes and posttreatment pain were asked to the participants, and 24-hour retrospective food consumption records were obtained.

RESULTS

When the food consumption records of the adolescents before the orthodontic treatment and at the first week, first month, and third month of the active orthodontic treatment were compared, there was no significant difference between total energy, protein, and carbohydrate intake. However, total fat intake decreased in the first week of treatment and increased significantly during the treatment period (P = 0.05). There was a significant decrease in the amount of fiber (P = 0.039), vitamin E (P = 0.043), and vitamin C (P = 0.048) intake of patients during the orthodontic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Nutrition and feeding habits are important for growth and development in adolescence. In adolescents having orthodontic treatment, vitamin C, vitamin E, and fiber intake decreased significantly, especially in the first weeks of treatment. The intake of these nutrients did not return to their initial levels by the 12th week of the orthodontic treatment. It is thought that cooperation with dietitians and orthodontists might minimize the undesired nutritional effects of the orthodontic treatment.

Oral health-related quality of life in orthodontics: a cross-sectional multicentre study on patients in orthodontic treatment

Objective

This study aimed to assess oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in relation to associated covariates in orthodontic patients of different age groups (children, adolescents, and adults) in a cross-sectional study.

Methods

A total of 898 subjects (50.6% females, 49.4% males; mean age 16.89 years) undergoing orthodontic treatment anonymously completed the German version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-G14) to assess OHRQoL in addition to completing 23 other items. Descriptive, exploratory statistical analysis and multiple linear regression modelling were performed.

Results

The mean score of the OHIP-G14 was 8.3 for the 6- to 11-year olds, 8.9 for the 12- to 17-year olds, and 12.6 for adults. Physical pain (Subscale 2) was the highest factor in all groups. Additionally, a relevant factor was Subscale 3 (psychological discomfort). A linear regression model showed that, in the adolescent group, aesthetics in combination with pain had a significant negative influence on OHRQoL, whereas, in the adult group, function in combination with pain showed the same significant negative influence. Second, except for the children, fixed appliances had a significant negative effect on OHRQoL compared to removable appliances.

Conclusions

Our study showed that the majority of the 6- to 11-year olds and 12- to 17-year olds reported a good OHRQoL. Nevertheless, adolescents and adults who reported aesthetic/pain and function/pain problems, respectively, as reasons for orthodontic treatment showed a significant occurrence for reduced OHRQoL. Fixed appliances, in comparison with removable appliances, also resulted in a significant reduction in OHRQoL for both groups.

Difference and relation between adolescents' and their parents or caregivers' reported oral health-related quality of life related to orthodontic treatment: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Parents/caregivers play an important role in deciding whether their children will undergo orthodontic treatment or not. Their perceptions also have an influence on other choices involving orthodontic treatment. The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference and correlation between the ratings given by children and their parents or caregivers on their oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) before, during and after orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

In this ongoing observational prospective cohort study, 498 children aged 11 to 16 years-old and one of their parents/caregivers completed questionnaires before (T0), 1 year after start (T1) and 1 month after the end of orthodontic treatment (T2). OHRQoL was scored by using the Child Perception Questionnaire (CPQ11-14) and the Parental-Caregiver Perception questionnaire (P-CPQ). The self-perception of oral aesthetics was evaluated with the Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Scale (OASIS) in addition to the aesthetic component (AC) of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN). Spearman correlations, Mann-Whitney U-tests and linear models were used to analyze the longitudinal data.

RESULTS

At T0, the ratings of parents/caregivers were significantly lower for the total CPQ as well as for the subdomains of oral symptoms, functional limitations and emotional well-being. Parents/caregivers also scored significantly lower at T2 for the total CPQ and the subdomain of oral symptoms. The relations between the scores of children and their parents/caregivers were significant at all three time points, as were the changes in scores, but all of them were at most moderate in size. Parents/caregivers scored significantly lower for OASIS than their children at all time points and only at baseline a significant, weak correlation was found.

CONCLUSION

The reports of parents/caregivers should be seen as important complementary information in OHRQoL research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was approved by the Medical Ethical Commitee of the University Hospitals Leuven and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (ML5739), Leuven, Belgium, on the 12th of May of 2009, with the registration number S51642. All procedures performed are in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committees and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.