This review of premolar extraction v non-extraction orthodontic treatment included 30 studies. Of these studies were 29 were retrospective and all 30 studies were considered to be at high risk of bias. The certainty of evidence is vey low so additional high quality research is required.
[read the full story...]
This scoping review of the literature comparing orthodontic treatment undertaken with and without the extraction of premolar teeth included 399 articles. Most study reports were of low methodological quality, and further reviews are unlikely to provide new information. Researchers should focus on high quality prospective primary studies that include outcomes of imortance to patients.
[read the full story...]
Thibault Colloc takes a look at this review comparing digital and conventional workflows for the placement of single crowns on dental implants. Ten studies were included involving 214 patients and 278 crowns.
[read the full story...]
Two surgical approaches ( open and closed) for palatally displaced canines were compared in this multi-centre RCT. No differences in operating time was seen between the two approaches but those in the open group had more pain.
[read the full story...]
8 mainly observational studies were included in this review of he effectiveness of clear aligners compared with fixed appliances for orthodontic treatment. The findings suggest no difference between to two approaches however the quality of the availabel evidence is low to very low.
[read the full story...]
This review assessing whether adhesive precoated orthodontic brackets are more efficient than operator-coated brackets included 5 RCTs find no differences in failure rate between the two systems.
[read the full story...]
This review of the effectiveness of chemomechanical caries removal in primary teeth identified 15 studies with 10 contributing to the quantitative analysis. The findings suggest this approach is less painful but takes longer than traditional approaches.
[read the full story...]
Only 4 mainly retrospective studies were identified for this review of the influence of orthodontic bracket size on treatment outcomes. While greater efficiency was suggested with the 0.018-inch bracket the quality of the evidence is limited a higher quality studies are needed.
[read the full story...]
This well conducted and reported trial compared customised orthodontic system against traditional methods. The customised system was not associated with any significant reduction in treatment duration, and the treatment outcomes were comparable with both systems.
[read the full story...]
25 studies include 20 RCTs and 5 controlled trials were included this review. They were all conducted in a hospital or university setting and found that treatment duration was on average 19.9 months (95% CI; 19.58 to 20.22 months) over 17.81visits ( 95%CI; 19.71 to 20.32 months)
[read the full story...]
