Comparison of two early treatment protocols for anterior dental crossbite in the mixed dentition: A randomized trial

Effectiveness of clear aligner versus removable inclined plane in treatment of anterior crossbite in mixed dentition: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of clear aligners and removable inclined planes (RIP) in management of anterior crossbite in late mixed dentition patients using a 3D digital model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four patients with functional anterior crossbite, aged 8 to 12 years old, were randomly assigned to two parallel groups: the clear aligner (CA) group with a mean age of 10.74 ± 1.1 years, treated with clear aligner, and the RIP group with a mean age of 10.54 ± 1.06 years. Digital models were obtained for each patient before (T0) and after 4 months of starting the treatment (T1) using an intraoral scanner. The T0 to T1 digital model was superimposed to assess the primary outcome, labial movement of the maxillary incisors. For each model, the following secondary outcomes were evaluated: overbite, intermolar width (IMW), incisor leveling, arch perimeter (AP), and mesiodistal angulation. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, paired t tests, independent t tests, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey's HSD test.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between CA and RIP groups regarding overjet, overbite, incisor leveling, and mesiodistal angulation of the maxillary incisors (P < 0.05). However, a significant difference was found between two groups in IMW, AP, and incisor superimposition (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The CA group showed a more significant increase in labial movement of maxillary incisors, IMW, and AP compared to the RIP group. However, both treatment protocols were effective in treating anterior crossbite. This study was recorded in the ClinicalTrials.gov database (identifier: NCT06015386).

Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children

BACKGROUND

Prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) may be due to jaw or tooth position or both. The upper jaw (maxilla) can be too far back or the lower jaw (mandible) too far forward; the upper front teeth (incisors) may be tipped back or the lower front teeth tipped forwards. Orthodontic treatment uses different types of braces (appliances) fitted inside or outside the mouth (or both) and fixed to the teeth. A facemask is the most commonly reported non-surgical intervention used to correct Class III malocclusion. The facemask rests on the forehead and chin, and is connected to the upper teeth via an expansion appliance (known as 'rapid maxillary expansion' (RME)). Using elastic bands placed by the wearer, a force is applied to the top teeth and jaw to pull them forwards and downward. Some orthodontic interventions involve a surgical component; these go through the gum into the bone (e.g. miniplates). In severe cases, or if orthodontic treatment is unsuccessful, people may need jaw (orthognathic) surgery as adults. This review updates one published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases and two trial registries up to 16 January 2023. Review authors screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adolescents (16 years of age or under) randomised to receive orthodontic treatment to correct prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion), or no (or delayed) treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was overjet (i.e. prominence of the lower front teeth); our secondary outcomes included ANB (A point, nasion, B point) angle (which measures the relative position of the maxilla to the mandible).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 29 RCTs that randomised 1169 children (1102 analysed). The children were five to 13 years old at the start of treatment. Most studies measured outcomes directly after treatment; only one study provided long-term follow-up. All studies were at high risk of bias as participant and personnel blinding was not possible. Non-surgical orthodontic treatment versus untreated control We found moderate-certainty evidence that non-surgical orthodontic treatments provided a substantial improvement in overjet (mean difference (MD) 5.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.81 to 6.25; 4 studies, 184 participants) and ANB (MD 3.05°, 95% CI 2.40 to 3.71; 8 studies, 345 participants), compared to an untreated control group, when measured immediately after treatment. There was high heterogeneity in the analyses, but the effects were consistently in favour of the orthodontic treatment groups rather than the untreated control groups (studies tested facemask (with or without RME), chin cup, orthodontic removable traction appliance, tandem traction bow appliance, reverse Twin Block with lip pads and RME, Reverse Forsus and mandibular headgear). Longer-term outcomes were measured in only one study, which evaluated facemask. It presented low-certainty evidence that improvements in overjet and ANB were smaller at 3-year follow-up than just after treatment (overjet MD 2.5 mm, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.79; ANB MD 1.4°, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.37; 63 participants), and were not found at 6-year follow-up (overjet MD 1.30 mm, 95% CI -0.16 to 2.76; ANB MD 0.7°, 95% CI -0.74 to 2.14; 65 participants). In the same study, at the 6-year follow-up, clinicians made an assessment of whether surgical correction of participants' jaw position was likely to be needed in the future. A perceived need for surgical correction was observed more often in participants who had not received facemask treatment (odds ratio (OR) 3.34, 95% CI 1.21 to 9.24; 65 participants; low-certainty evidence). Surgical orthodontic treatment versus untreated control One study of 30 participants evaluated surgical miniplates, with facemask or Class III elastics, against no treatment, and found a substantial improvement in overjet (MD 7.96 mm, 95% CI 6.99 to 8.40) and ANB (MD 5.20°, 95% CI 4.48 to 5.92; 30 participants). However, the evidence was of low certainty, and there was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment. Facemask versus another non-surgical orthodontic treatment Eight studies compared facemask or modified facemask (with or without RME) to another non-surgical orthodontic treatment. Meta-analysis did not suggest that other treatments were superior; however, there was high heterogeneity, with mixed, uncertain findings (very low-certainty evidence). Facemask versus surgically-anchored appliance There may be no advantage of adding surgical anchorage to facemasks for ANB (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.07; 4 studies, 143 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for overjet was of very low certainty (MD -0.40 mm, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.50; 1 study, 43 participants). Facemask variations Adding RME to facemask treatment may have no additional benefit for ANB (MD -0.15°, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.64; 2 studies, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for overjet was of low certainty (MD 1.86 mm, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.33; 1 study, 31 participants). There may be no benefit in terms of effect on ANB of alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction compared to using expansion alone (MD -0.46°, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.10; 4 studies, 131 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence showed that non-surgical orthodontic treatments (which included facemask, reverse Twin Block, orthodontic removable traction appliance, chin cup, tandem traction bow appliance and mandibular headgear) improved the bite and jaw relationship immediately post-treatment. Low-certainty evidence showed surgical orthodontic treatments were also effective. One study measured longer-term outcomes and found that the benefit from facemask was reduced three years after treatment, and appeared to be lost by six years. However, participants receiving facemask treatment were judged by clinicians to be less likely to need jaw surgery in adulthood. We have low confidence in these findings and more studies are required to reach reliable conclusions. Orthodontic treatment for Class III malocclusion can be invasive, expensive and time-consuming, so future trials should include measurement of adverse effects and patient satisfaction, and should last long enough to evaluate whether orthodontic treatment in childhood avoids the need for jaw surgery in adulthood.

Comparison Between Removable and Fixed Devices for Nonskeletal Anterior Crossbite Correction in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To compare removable and fixed orthodontic devices in the correction of non-skeletal anterior crossbite in children and adolescents in the mixed dentition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Medline Ovid, Lilacs, US Clinical Trials, and Proquest. A hand search of the reference lists of the included articles and a Google Scholar search were also conducted. References were evaluated by 2 review authors. Articles that met the eligibility criteria were included. Data extraction, methodological quality assessment (Cochrane tool), and strength of the evidence evaluation (GRADE) were also carried out.

RESULTS

Seven articles were included. The results showed that removable and fixed devices were equally efficacious for overjet correction. Removable and fixed devices can also present inconveniences regarding pain and discomfort levels, the accomplishment of everyday activities (leisure and school), and the performance of functions, such as chewing and speech. However, treatment time and costs were significantly lower in orthodontic therapy with fixed appliances. Sequence generation, allocation concealment, and complete outcome data were not a concern. Blinding of participants or personnel was not reported in any article, and blinding of the assessor was a concern in 2 articles. Selective reporting was a concern in 2 articles. The certainty of the evidence for overjet correction was very low.

CONCLUSION

Removable and fixed orthodontic devices are efficacious for overjet correction in non-skeletal anterior crossbite. However, treatment time and costs are lower for cases treated with fixed devices.

Removable appliances to correct anterior crossbites in the mixed dentition: a systematic review

Objectives: To investigate the effectiveness of an upper removable appliance in the treatment of an anterior crossbite in term of quality of life, effectiveness, treatment time, long term stability and cost minimization.Design: Systematic reviewData source: A search strategy was implemented using both manual hand search and electronic databases, including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Ebsco.Study eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled clinical trialsParticipants: Children in the early or late mixed dentition with an anterior crossbite affecting one or more incisors, and no underlying skeletal class III pattern.Interventions: Upper removable appliance compared with other orthodontic appliances.Study appraisal and synthesis: All potential articles were checked against the inclusion criteria independently, and in duplicate by two investigators. Risk of bias of eligible studies to be included in the final analysis was assessed independently by two authors using Cochrane risk of bias tool.Results: A total of 524 articles were identified in both manual and electronic searches as well as by checking the reference lists of the final articles to be included in the study. Only 7 reports of 3 RCTs met the inclusion criteria and thus were included in the final analysis. All but one of the 3 RCTs were judged to be of very low quality. No statistical methods were employed to combine the studies due to the heterogeneity of the studies.Conclusion: A fixed appliance was more cost-effective than a removable appliance in the correction of an anterior crossbite with a functional shift. There was no significant difference in terms of quality of life, pain intensity or long-term stability between the two appliances. On the other hand, both a removable appliance and cemented bite-pads were equally effective in the correction of an anterior dental crossbite without having any side effect.

Assessment of early orthodontic treatment on functional shifts by telemonitoring mandibular movements using a smart phone

Introduction

To assess effect of orthodontic treatment on anterior or lateral functional shift in mixed dentition stage by telemonitoring mandibular movements in four-dimensions using a novel objective method that can assist in orthodontics and other dental specialties without the need of expensive, bulky or complicated equipment.

Methods

A sample of 60 patients was divided into two groups. Group I included 30 patients with normal occlusion and TMJ functions. Group II included 30 patients that were diagnosed with an abnormal path of closure in antero-posterior or transverse directions due to disharmony between centric occlusion and centric relation. The latter group was orthodontically treated and mandibular movements were measured before, during, directly after orthodontic treatment, and one year after treatment using our proposed method. To evaluate validity and reliability of our method, it was compared with two methods, a commercially available mandibular scanner, and a low-cost graphical method that utilizes a sheet of wax and a stylus.

Results

It was found that the overall differences between opening and closing curves of our proposed method and the other two methods were small and negligible (p > 0.05).

Discussion

It was found that our proposed method is offering a reasonably accurate, simple and rapid way to telemonitor the mandible movements in four-dimensions using the rear/front camera of any smart-phone.