The Experts below are selected from a list of 210 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Kevin D. O'brien - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Cochrane Library - Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018
    Co-Authors: Klaus Bsl Batista, Jayne E Harrison, Badri Thiruvenkatachari, Kevin D. O'brien
    Abstract:

    Background Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year-old children in the UK. The condition develops when permanent teeth erupt. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress. Children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with Dental Braces to reduce the prominence of their teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait and provide treatment in adolescence. Objectives To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth initiated when children are seven to 11 years old ('early treatment' in two phases) compared to in adolescence at around 12 to 16 years old ('late treatment' in one phase); to assess the effects of late treatment compared to no treatment; and to assess the effects of different types of orthodontic Braces. Search methods Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 27 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 27 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 27 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of orthodontic treatments to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. We included trials that compared early treatment in children (two-phase) with any type of orthodontic Braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-Braces versus late treatment in adolescents (one-phase) with any type of orthodontic Braces or head-Braces, and trials that compared any type of orthodontic Braces or head-Braces versus no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (where treatment started at a similar age in the intervention groups).We excluded trials involving participants with a cleft lip or palate, or other craniofacial deformity/syndrome, and trials that recruited patients who had previously received surgical treatment for their Class II malocclusion. Data collection and analysis Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the fixed-effect model for meta-analyses including two or three studies and the random-effects model for more than three studies. Main results We included 27 RCTs based on data from 1251 participants.Three trials compared early treatment with a functional appliance versus late treatment for overjet, ANB and incisal trauma. After phase one of early treatment (i.e. before the other group had received any intervention), there was a reduction in overjet and ANB reduction favouring treatment with a functional appliance; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no difference between groups in final overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18; 343 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43; 347 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Early treatment with functional appliances reduced the incidence of incisal trauma compared to late treatment (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.95; 332 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). The difference in the incidence of incisal trauma was clinically important with 30% (51/171) of participants reporting new trauma in the late treatment group compared to only 19% (31/161) of participants who had received early treatment.Two trials compared early treatment using headgear versus late treatment. After phase one of early treatment, headgear had reduced overjet and ANB; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in overjet (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12; 238 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26; 231 participants) (low-quality evidence). Early (two-phase) treatment with headgear reduced the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.80; 237 participants) (low-quality evidence), with almost half the incidence of new incisal trauma (24/117) compared to the late treatment group (44/120).Seven trials compared late treatment with functional appliances versus no treatment. There was a reduction in final overjet with both fixed functional appliances (MD -5.46 mm, 95% CI -6.63 to -4.28; 2 trials, 61 participants) and removable functional appliances (MD -4.62, 95% CI -5.33 to -3.92; 3 trials, 122 participants) (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in final ANB between fixed functional appliances and no treatment (MD -0.53°, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.22; 3 trials, 89 participants) (low-quality evidence), but removable functional appliances seemed to reduce ANB compared to no treatment (MD -2.37°, 95% CI -3.01 to -1.74; 2 trials, 99 participants) (low-quality evidence).Six trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with Twin Block versus other appliances and found no difference in overjet (0.08 mm, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.76; 4 trials, 259 participants) (low-quality evidence). The reduction in ANB favoured treatment with a Twin Block (-0.56°, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.16; 6 trials, 320 participants) (low-quality evidence).Three trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with removable functional appliances versus fixed functional appliances and found a reduction in overjet in favour of fixed appliances (0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.33; two trials, 154 participants) (low-quality evidence), and a reduction in ANB in favour of removable appliances (-1.04°, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.49; 3 trials, 185 participants) (low-quality evidence). Authors' conclusions Evidence of low to moderate quality suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective for reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment in adolescence. There appear to be no other advantages of providing early treatment when compared to late treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that, compared to no treatment, late treatment in adolescence with functional appliances, is effective for reducing the prominence of upper front teeth.

  • The Cochrane Library - Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013
    Co-Authors: Badri Thiruvenkatachari, Jayne E Harrison, Helen V Worthington, Kevin D. O'brien
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year old children in the UK. The correction of this condition is one of the most common treatments performed by orthodontists. This condition develops when the child's permanent teeth erupt and children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with Dental Braces to reduce the prominence of the teeth. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress.If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait until the child is older and provide treatment in early adolescence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth when this treatment is initiated when the child is seven to 11 years old compared to when they are in early adolescence, or when treatment uses different types of orthodontic Braces. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 April 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 17 April 2013) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 17 April 2013). There were no restrictions regarding language or publication date. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) on early treatment (either one or two-phase) with any type of orthodontic Braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-Braces compared with late treatment with any type of orthodontic Braces or head-Braces; or, on any type of orthodontic Braces or head-Braces compared with no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (with treatment starting in children of similar ages in both groups) to correct prominent upper front teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently, used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes and a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses as there were fewer than four studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies based on data from 721 participants.Three trials (n = 343) compared early (two-phase) treatment (7-11 years of age) with a functional appliance, with adolescent (one-phase) treatment. Statistically significant differences in overjet, ANB and PAR scores were found in favour of functional appliance when the first phase of early treatment was compared with observation in the children due to receive treatment in adolescence. However, at the end of treatment in both groups, there was no evidence of a difference in the overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18) (low quality evidence), final ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43, P = 0.92), PAR score (MD 0.62, 95% CI -0.66 to 1.91, P = 0.34) or self concept score (MD 0.83, CI -2.31 to 3.97, P = 0.60). However, two-phase treatment with functional appliance showed a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, P = 0.04) (moderate quality evidence). The incidence of incisal trauma was clinically significant with 29% (54/185) of patients reporting new trauma incidence in the adolescent (one-phase) treatment group compared to only 20% (34/172) of patients receiving early (two-phase) treatment.Two trials (n = 285), compared early (two-phase) treatment using headgear, with adolescent (one-phase) treatment. Statistically significant differences in overjet and ANB were found in favour of headgear when the first phase of early treatment was compared with observation in the children due to receive treatment in adolescence. However, at the end of treatment in both groups, there was no evidence of a difference in the overjet (MD 0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12, P = 0.20) (low quality evidence), final ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26, P = 0.32) or PAR score (MD -1.55, 95% CI -3.70 to 0.60, P = 0.16). The incidence of incisal trauma was, however, statistically significantly reduced in the two-phase treatment group (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83, P = 0.009) (low quality evidence). The adolescent treatment group showed twice the incidence of incisal trauma (47/120) compared to the young children group (27/117).Two trials (n = 282) compared different types of appliances (headgear and functional appliance) for early (two-phase) treatment. At the end of the first phase of treatment statistically significant differences, in favour of functional appliances, were shown with respect to final overjet only. At the end of phase two, there was no evidence of a difference between appliances with regard to overjet (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.15, P = 0.26), final ANB (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.34, P= 0.52), PAR score (MD -0.81, 95% CI -2.21 to 0.58, P = 0.25) or the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.44, P = 0.44).Late orthodontic treatment for adolescents with functional appliances showed a statistically significant reduction in overjet of -5.22 mm (95% CI -6.51 to -3.93, P < 0.00001) and ANB of -2.37� (95% CI -3.01 to -1.74, P < 0.00001) when compared to no treatment (very low quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference in overjet when Twin Block was compared to other appliances (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.48, P = 0.95). However, a statistically significant reduction in ANB (-0.63�, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.08, P = 0.02) was shown in favour of Twin Block. There was no evidence of a difference in any reported outcome when Twin Block was compared with modifications of Twin Block.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of Activator, FORSUS FRD EZ appliances, R-appliance or AIBP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective in reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment when the child is in early adolescence. There appears to be no other advantages for providing treatment early when compared to treatment in adolescence.

  • Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth in children
    Australian Dental Journal, 2008
    Co-Authors: Jayne E Harrison, Kevin D. O'brien, Helen V Worthington
    Abstract:

    Background: Prominent upper front teeth are an important and potentially harmful type of orthodontic problem. This condition develops when the childs permanent teeth erupt and children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with Dental Braces to reduce the prominence of the teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait until the child is older and provide treatment in early adolescence. When treatment is provided during adolescence the orthodontist may provide treatment with various orthodontic Braces, but there is currently little evidence of the relative effectiveness of the different Braces that can be used. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth, when this treatment is provided when the child is 7 to 9 years old or when they are in early adolescence or with different Dental Braces or both. Search strategy: The Cochrane Oral Health Groups Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. The handsearching of the key international orthodontic journals was updated to December 2006. There were no restrictions in respect to language or status of publication. Date of most recent searches: February 2007. * design - randomized and controlled clinical trials; * participants - children or adolescents (age < 16 years) or both receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth; * interventions - active: any orthodontic brace or head-brace, control: no or delayed treatment or another active intervention; * primary outcomes - prominence of the upper front teeth, relationship between upper and lower jaws; * secondary outcomes: self esteem, any injury to the upper front teeth, jaw joint problems, patient satisfaction, number of attendances required to complete treatment. Data collection and analysis: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted independently and in duplicate by two review authors. The Cochrane Oral Health Groups statistical guidelines were followed and mean differences were calculated using random-effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined. Main results: The search strategy identified 185 titles and abstracts. From this we obtained 105 full reports for the review. Eight trials, based on data from 592 patients who presented with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, were included in the review. Early treatment comparisons: Three trials, involving 432 participants, compared early treatment with a functional appliance with no treatment. There was a significant difference in final overjet of the treatment group compared with the control group of ?4.04 mm (95% CI ?7.47 to ?0.6, chi squared 117.02, 2 df, P < 0.00001, I2 = 98.3%). There was a significant difference in ANB (?1.35 mm; 95% CI ?2.57 to ?0.14, chi squared 9.17, 2 df, P = 0.01, I2 = 78.2%) and change in ANB (?0.55; 95% CI ?0.92 to ?0.18, chi squared 5.71, 1 df, P = 0.06, I2 = 65.0%) between the treatment and control groups. The comparison of the effect of treatment with headgear versus untreated control revealed that there was a small but significant effect of headgear treatment on overjet of ?1.07 (95% CI ?1.63 to ?0.51, chi squared 0.05, 1 df, P = 0.82, I2 = 0%). Similarly, headgear resulted in a significant reduction in final ANB of ?0.72 (95% CI ?1.18 to ?0.27, chi squared 0.34, 1 df, P = 0.56, I2 = 0%). No significant differences, with respect to final overjet, ANB, or ANB change, were found between the effects of early treatment with headgear and the functional appliances. Adolescent treatment (Phase II): At the end of all treatment we found that there were no significant differences in overjet, final ANB or PAR score between the children who had a course of early treatment, with headgear or a functional appliance, and those who had not received early treatment. Similarly, there were no significant differences in overjet, final ANB or PAR score between children who had received a course of early treatment with headgear or a functional appliance. One trial found a significant reduction in overjet (?5.22 mm; 95% CI ?6.51 to ?3.93) and ANB (?2.27 degrees; 95% CI ?3.22 to ?1.31, chi squared 1.9, 1 df, P = 0.17, I2 = 47.3%) for adolescents receiving one-phase treatment with a functional appliance versus an untreated control. A statistically significant reduction of ANB (?0.68 degrees; 95% CI ?1.32 to ?0.04, chi squared 0.56, 1 df, P = 0.46, I2 = 0%) with the Twin Block appliance when compared to other functional appliances. However, there was no significant effect of the type of appliance on the final overjet. Authors conclusions: The evidence suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is no more effective than providing one course of orthodontic treatment when the child is in early adolescence.

  • The Cochrane Library - Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth in children.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007
    Co-Authors: Jayne E Harrison, Kevin D. O'brien, Helen V Worthington
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Prominent upper front teeth are an important and potentially harmful type of orthodontic problem. This condition develops when the child's permanent teeth erupt and children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with Dental Braces to reduce the prominence of the teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait until the child is older and provide treatment in early adolescence. When treatment is provided during adolescence the orthodontist may provide treatment with various orthodontic Braces, but there is currently little evidence of the relative effectiveness of the different Braces that can be used. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth, when this treatment is provided when the child is 7 to 9 years old or when they are in early adolescence or with different Dental Braces or both. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. The handsearching of the key international orthodontic journals was updated to December 2006. There were no restrictions in respect to language or status of publication.Date of most recent searches: February 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - randomised and controlled clinical trials; participants - children or adolescents (age < 16 years) or both receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth; interventions - active: any orthodontic brace or head-brace, control: no or delayed treatment or another active intervention; primary outcomes - prominence of the upper front teeth, relationship between upper and lower jaws; secondary outcomes: self esteem, any injury to the upper front teeth, jaw joint problems, patient satisfaction, number of attendances required to complete treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted independently and in duplicate by two review authors.The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed and mean differences were calculated using random-effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy identified 185 titles and abstracts. From this we obtained 105 full reports for the review. Eight trials, based on data from 592 patients who presented with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, were included in the review.Early treatment comparisons: Three trials, involving 432 participants, compared early treatment with a functional appliance with no treatment. There was a significant difference in final overjet of the treatment group compared with the control group of -4.04 mm (95% CI -7.47 to -0.6, chi squared 117.02, 2 df, P < 0.00001, I(2) = 98.3%). There was a significant difference in ANB (-1.35 mm; 95% CI -2.57 to -0.14, chi squared 9.17, 2 df, P = 0.01, I(2) = 78.2%) and change in ANB (-0.55; 95% CI -0.92 to -0.18, chi squared 5.71, 1 df, P = 0.06, I(2) = 65.0%) between the treatment and control groups.The comparison of the effect of treatment with headgear versus untreated control revealed that there was a small but significant effect of headgear treatment on overjet of -1.07 (95% CI -1.63 to -0.51, chi squared 0.05, 1 df, P = 0.82, I(2) = 0%). Similarly, headgear resulted in a significant reduction in final ANB of -0.72 (95% CI -1.18 to -0.27, chi squared 0.34, 1 df, P = 0.56, I(2) = 0%). No significant differences, with respect to final overjet, ANB, or ANB change, were found between the effects of early treatment with headgear and the functional appliances. Adolescent treatment (Phase II): At the end of all treatment we found that there were no significant differences in overjet, final ANB or PAR score between the children who had a course of early treatment, with headgear or a functional appliance, and tho

  • The Cochrane Library - Orthodontic treatment for deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006
    Co-Authors: Declan T. Millett, Kevin D. O'brien, Susan J. Cunningham, Philip E. Benson, Cesar De Oliveira
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Correction of the type of Dental problem where the bite is deep and the upper front teeth are retroclined (Class II division 2 malocclusion) may be carried out using different types of orthodontic treatment. However, in severe cases, surgery to the jaws in combination with orthodontics may be required. In growing children, treatment may sometimes be carried out using special upper and lower Dental Braces (functional appliances) that can be removed from the mouth. In many cases this treatment does not involve taking out any permanent teeth. Often, however, further treatment is needed with fixed Braces to get the best result. In other cases, treatment aims to move the upper first permanent molars backwards to provide space for the correction of the front teeth. This may be carried out by applying a force to the teeth and jaws from the back of the head using a head brace (headgear) and transmitting this force to a part of a fixed or removable Dental brace. This treatment may or may not involve the removal of permanent teeth. In some cases, neither functional appliances nor headgear are required and treatment may be carried out without extraction of any permanent teeth. Instead of using a headgear, in certain cases, the back teeth are held back in other ways such as with an arch across or in contact with the front of the roof of the mouth which links two bands glued to the back teeth. Often in these cases, two permanent teeth are taken out from the middle of the upper arch (one on each side) to provide room to correct the upper front teeth. It is important for orthodontists to find out whether orthodontic treatment only, carried out without the removal of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion produces a result which is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment only involving extraction of permanent teeth. OBJECTIVES: To establish whether orthodontic treatment, carried out without the removal of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion, produces a result which is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment involving removal of permanent teeth. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. The handsearching of the main international orthodontic journals was updated to April 2006. There were no restrictions with regard to publication status or language of publication. International researchers, likely to be involved in Class II division 2 clinical trials, were contacted to identify any unpublished or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of orthodontic treatments to correct deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs or CCTs were identified that assessed the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusion in children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to provide any evidence-based guidance to recommend or discourage any type of orthodontic treatment to correct Class II division 2 malocclusion in children.

Helen V Worthington - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Cochrane Library - Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013
    Co-Authors: Badri Thiruvenkatachari, Jayne E Harrison, Helen V Worthington, Kevin D. O'brien
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year old children in the UK. The correction of this condition is one of the most common treatments performed by orthodontists. This condition develops when the child's permanent teeth erupt and children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with Dental Braces to reduce the prominence of the teeth. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress.If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait until the child is older and provide treatment in early adolescence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth when this treatment is initiated when the child is seven to 11 years old compared to when they are in early adolescence, or when treatment uses different types of orthodontic Braces. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 April 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 17 April 2013) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 17 April 2013). There were no restrictions regarding language or publication date. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) on early treatment (either one or two-phase) with any type of orthodontic Braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-Braces compared with late treatment with any type of orthodontic Braces or head-Braces; or, on any type of orthodontic Braces or head-Braces compared with no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (with treatment starting in children of similar ages in both groups) to correct prominent upper front teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently, used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes and a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses as there were fewer than four studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies based on data from 721 participants.Three trials (n = 343) compared early (two-phase) treatment (7-11 years of age) with a functional appliance, with adolescent (one-phase) treatment. Statistically significant differences in overjet, ANB and PAR scores were found in favour of functional appliance when the first phase of early treatment was compared with observation in the children due to receive treatment in adolescence. However, at the end of treatment in both groups, there was no evidence of a difference in the overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18) (low quality evidence), final ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43, P = 0.92), PAR score (MD 0.62, 95% CI -0.66 to 1.91, P = 0.34) or self concept score (MD 0.83, CI -2.31 to 3.97, P = 0.60). However, two-phase treatment with functional appliance showed a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, P = 0.04) (moderate quality evidence). The incidence of incisal trauma was clinically significant with 29% (54/185) of patients reporting new trauma incidence in the adolescent (one-phase) treatment group compared to only 20% (34/172) of patients receiving early (two-phase) treatment.Two trials (n = 285), compared early (two-phase) treatment using headgear, with adolescent (one-phase) treatment. Statistically significant differences in overjet and ANB were found in favour of headgear when the first phase of early treatment was compared with observation in the children due to receive treatment in adolescence. However, at the end of treatment in both groups, there was no evidence of a difference in the overjet (MD 0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12, P = 0.20) (low quality evidence), final ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26, P = 0.32) or PAR score (MD -1.55, 95% CI -3.70 to 0.60, P = 0.16). The incidence of incisal trauma was, however, statistically significantly reduced in the two-phase treatment group (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83, P = 0.009) (low quality evidence). The adolescent treatment group showed twice the incidence of incisal trauma (47/120) compared to the young children group (27/117).Two trials (n = 282) compared different types of appliances (headgear and functional appliance) for early (two-phase) treatment. At the end of the first phase of treatment statistically significant differences, in favour of functional appliances, were shown with respect to final overjet only. At the end of phase two, there was no evidence of a difference between appliances with regard to overjet (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.15, P = 0.26), final ANB (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.34, P= 0.52), PAR score (MD -0.81, 95% CI -2.21 to 0.58, P = 0.25) or the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.44, P = 0.44).Late orthodontic treatment for adolescents with functional appliances showed a statistically significant reduction in overjet of -5.22 mm (95% CI -6.51 to -3.93, P < 0.00001) and ANB of -2.37� (95% CI -3.01 to -1.74, P < 0.00001) when compared to no treatment (very low quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference in overjet when Twin Block was compared to other appliances (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.48, P = 0.95). However, a statistically significant reduction in ANB (-0.63�, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.08, P = 0.02) was shown in favour of Twin Block. There was no evidence of a difference in any reported outcome when Twin Block was compared with modifications of Twin Block.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of Activator, FORSUS FRD EZ appliances, R-appliance or AIBP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective in reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment when the child is in early adolescence. There appears to be no other advantages for providing treatment early when compared to treatment in adolescence.

  • Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth in children
    Australian Dental Journal, 2008
    Co-Authors: Jayne E Harrison, Kevin D. O'brien, Helen V Worthington
    Abstract:

    Background: Prominent upper front teeth are an important and potentially harmful type of orthodontic problem. This condition develops when the childs permanent teeth erupt and children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with Dental Braces to reduce the prominence of the teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait until the child is older and provide treatment in early adolescence. When treatment is provided during adolescence the orthodontist may provide treatment with various orthodontic Braces, but there is currently little evidence of the relative effectiveness of the different Braces that can be used. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth, when this treatment is provided when the child is 7 to 9 years old or when they are in early adolescence or with different Dental Braces or both. Search strategy: The Cochrane Oral Health Groups Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. The handsearching of the key international orthodontic journals was updated to December 2006. There were no restrictions in respect to language or status of publication. Date of most recent searches: February 2007. * design - randomized and controlled clinical trials; * participants - children or adolescents (age < 16 years) or both receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth; * interventions - active: any orthodontic brace or head-brace, control: no or delayed treatment or another active intervention; * primary outcomes - prominence of the upper front teeth, relationship between upper and lower jaws; * secondary outcomes: self esteem, any injury to the upper front teeth, jaw joint problems, patient satisfaction, number of attendances required to complete treatment. Data collection and analysis: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted independently and in duplicate by two review authors. The Cochrane Oral Health Groups statistical guidelines were followed and mean differences were calculated using random-effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined. Main results: The search strategy identified 185 titles and abstracts. From this we obtained 105 full reports for the review. Eight trials, based on data from 592 patients who presented with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, were included in the review. Early treatment comparisons: Three trials, involving 432 participants, compared early treatment with a functional appliance with no treatment. There was a significant difference in final overjet of the treatment group compared with the control group of ?4.04 mm (95% CI ?7.47 to ?0.6, chi squared 117.02, 2 df, P < 0.00001, I2 = 98.3%). There was a significant difference in ANB (?1.35 mm; 95% CI ?2.57 to ?0.14, chi squared 9.17, 2 df, P = 0.01, I2 = 78.2%) and change in ANB (?0.55; 95% CI ?0.92 to ?0.18, chi squared 5.71, 1 df, P = 0.06, I2 = 65.0%) between the treatment and control groups. The comparison of the effect of treatment with headgear versus untreated control revealed that there was a small but significant effect of headgear treatment on overjet of ?1.07 (95% CI ?1.63 to ?0.51, chi squared 0.05, 1 df, P = 0.82, I2 = 0%). Similarly, headgear resulted in a significant reduction in final ANB of ?0.72 (95% CI ?1.18 to ?0.27, chi squared 0.34, 1 df, P = 0.56, I2 = 0%). No significant differences, with respect to final overjet, ANB, or ANB change, were found between the effects of early treatment with headgear and the functional appliances. Adolescent treatment (Phase II): At the end of all treatment we found that there were no significant differences in overjet, final ANB or PAR score between the children who had a course of early treatment, with headgear or a functional appliance, and those who had not received early treatment. Similarly, there were no significant differences in overjet, final ANB or PAR score between children who had received a course of early treatment with headgear or a functional appliance. One trial found a significant reduction in overjet (?5.22 mm; 95% CI ?6.51 to ?3.93) and ANB (?2.27 degrees; 95% CI ?3.22 to ?1.31, chi squared 1.9, 1 df, P = 0.17, I2 = 47.3%) for adolescents receiving one-phase treatment with a functional appliance versus an untreated control. A statistically significant reduction of ANB (?0.68 degrees; 95% CI ?1.32 to ?0.04, chi squared 0.56, 1 df, P = 0.46, I2 = 0%) with the Twin Block appliance when compared to other functional appliances. However, there was no significant effect of the type of appliance on the final overjet. Authors conclusions: The evidence suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is no more effective than providing one course of orthodontic treatment when the child is in early adolescence.

  • The Cochrane Library - Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth in children.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007
    Co-Authors: Jayne E Harrison, Kevin D. O'brien, Helen V Worthington
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Prominent upper front teeth are an important and potentially harmful type of orthodontic problem. This condition develops when the child's permanent teeth erupt and children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with Dental Braces to reduce the prominence of the teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait until the child is older and provide treatment in early adolescence. When treatment is provided during adolescence the orthodontist may provide treatment with various orthodontic Braces, but there is currently little evidence of the relative effectiveness of the different Braces that can be used. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth, when this treatment is provided when the child is 7 to 9 years old or when they are in early adolescence or with different Dental Braces or both. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. The handsearching of the key international orthodontic journals was updated to December 2006. There were no restrictions in respect to language or status of publication.Date of most recent searches: February 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - randomised and controlled clinical trials; participants - children or adolescents (age < 16 years) or both receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth; interventions - active: any orthodontic brace or head-brace, control: no or delayed treatment or another active intervention; primary outcomes - prominence of the upper front teeth, relationship between upper and lower jaws; secondary outcomes: self esteem, any injury to the upper front teeth, jaw joint problems, patient satisfaction, number of attendances required to complete treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted independently and in duplicate by two review authors.The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed and mean differences were calculated using random-effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy identified 185 titles and abstracts. From this we obtained 105 full reports for the review. Eight trials, based on data from 592 patients who presented with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, were included in the review.Early treatment comparisons: Three trials, involving 432 participants, compared early treatment with a functional appliance with no treatment. There was a significant difference in final overjet of the treatment group compared with the control group of -4.04 mm (95% CI -7.47 to -0.6, chi squared 117.02, 2 df, P < 0.00001, I(2) = 98.3%). There was a significant difference in ANB (-1.35 mm; 95% CI -2.57 to -0.14, chi squared 9.17, 2 df, P = 0.01, I(2) = 78.2%) and change in ANB (-0.55; 95% CI -0.92 to -0.18, chi squared 5.71, 1 df, P = 0.06, I(2) = 65.0%) between the treatment and control groups.The comparison of the effect of treatment with headgear versus untreated control revealed that there was a small but significant effect of headgear treatment on overjet of -1.07 (95% CI -1.63 to -0.51, chi squared 0.05, 1 df, P = 0.82, I(2) = 0%). Similarly, headgear resulted in a significant reduction in final ANB of -0.72 (95% CI -1.18 to -0.27, chi squared 0.34, 1 df, P = 0.56, I(2) = 0%). No significant differences, with respect to final overjet, ANB, or ANB change, were found between the effects of early treatment with headgear and the functional appliances. Adolescent treatment (Phase II): At the end of all treatment we found that there were no significant differences in overjet, final ANB or PAR score between the children who had a course of early treatment, with headgear or a functional appliance, and tho

Jayne E Harrison - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Cochrane Library - Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018
    Co-Authors: Klaus Bsl Batista, Jayne E Harrison, Badri Thiruvenkatachari, Kevin D. O'brien
    Abstract:

    Background Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year-old children in the UK. The condition develops when permanent teeth erupt. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress. Children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with Dental Braces to reduce the prominence of their teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait and provide treatment in adolescence. Objectives To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth initiated when children are seven to 11 years old ('early treatment' in two phases) compared to in adolescence at around 12 to 16 years old ('late treatment' in one phase); to assess the effects of late treatment compared to no treatment; and to assess the effects of different types of orthodontic Braces. Search methods Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 27 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 27 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 27 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of orthodontic treatments to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. We included trials that compared early treatment in children (two-phase) with any type of orthodontic Braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-Braces versus late treatment in adolescents (one-phase) with any type of orthodontic Braces or head-Braces, and trials that compared any type of orthodontic Braces or head-Braces versus no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (where treatment started at a similar age in the intervention groups).We excluded trials involving participants with a cleft lip or palate, or other craniofacial deformity/syndrome, and trials that recruited patients who had previously received surgical treatment for their Class II malocclusion. Data collection and analysis Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the fixed-effect model for meta-analyses including two or three studies and the random-effects model for more than three studies. Main results We included 27 RCTs based on data from 1251 participants.Three trials compared early treatment with a functional appliance versus late treatment for overjet, ANB and incisal trauma. After phase one of early treatment (i.e. before the other group had received any intervention), there was a reduction in overjet and ANB reduction favouring treatment with a functional appliance; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no difference between groups in final overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18; 343 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43; 347 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Early treatment with functional appliances reduced the incidence of incisal trauma compared to late treatment (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.95; 332 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). The difference in the incidence of incisal trauma was clinically important with 30% (51/171) of participants reporting new trauma in the late treatment group compared to only 19% (31/161) of participants who had received early treatment.Two trials compared early treatment using headgear versus late treatment. After phase one of early treatment, headgear had reduced overjet and ANB; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in overjet (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12; 238 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26; 231 participants) (low-quality evidence). Early (two-phase) treatment with headgear reduced the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.80; 237 participants) (low-quality evidence), with almost half the incidence of new incisal trauma (24/117) compared to the late treatment group (44/120).Seven trials compared late treatment with functional appliances versus no treatment. There was a reduction in final overjet with both fixed functional appliances (MD -5.46 mm, 95% CI -6.63 to -4.28; 2 trials, 61 participants) and removable functional appliances (MD -4.62, 95% CI -5.33 to -3.92; 3 trials, 122 participants) (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in final ANB between fixed functional appliances and no treatment (MD -0.53°, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.22; 3 trials, 89 participants) (low-quality evidence), but removable functional appliances seemed to reduce ANB compared to no treatment (MD -2.37°, 95% CI -3.01 to -1.74; 2 trials, 99 participants) (low-quality evidence).Six trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with Twin Block versus other appliances and found no difference in overjet (0.08 mm, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.76; 4 trials, 259 participants) (low-quality evidence). The reduction in ANB favoured treatment with a Twin Block (-0.56°, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.16; 6 trials, 320 participants) (low-quality evidence).Three trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with removable functional appliances versus fixed functional appliances and found a reduction in overjet in favour of fixed appliances (0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.33; two trials, 154 participants) (low-quality evidence), and a reduction in ANB in favour of removable appliances (-1.04°, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.49; 3 trials, 185 participants) (low-quality evidence). Authors' conclusions Evidence of low to moderate quality suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective for reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment in adolescence. There appear to be no other advantages of providing early treatment when compared to late treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that, compared to no treatment, late treatment in adolescence with functional appliances, is effective for reducing the prominence of upper front teeth.

  • The Cochrane Library - Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013
    Co-Authors: Badri Thiruvenkatachari, Jayne E Harrison, Helen V Worthington, Kevin D. O'brien
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year old children in the UK. The correction of this condition is one of the most common treatments performed by orthodontists. This condition develops when the child's permanent teeth erupt and children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with Dental Braces to reduce the prominence of the teeth. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress.If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait until the child is older and provide treatment in early adolescence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth when this treatment is initiated when the child is seven to 11 years old compared to when they are in early adolescence, or when treatment uses different types of orthodontic Braces. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 April 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 17 April 2013) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 17 April 2013). There were no restrictions regarding language or publication date. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) on early treatment (either one or two-phase) with any type of orthodontic Braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-Braces compared with late treatment with any type of orthodontic Braces or head-Braces; or, on any type of orthodontic Braces or head-Braces compared with no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (with treatment starting in children of similar ages in both groups) to correct prominent upper front teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently, used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes and a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses as there were fewer than four studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies based on data from 721 participants.Three trials (n = 343) compared early (two-phase) treatment (7-11 years of age) with a functional appliance, with adolescent (one-phase) treatment. Statistically significant differences in overjet, ANB and PAR scores were found in favour of functional appliance when the first phase of early treatment was compared with observation in the children due to receive treatment in adolescence. However, at the end of treatment in both groups, there was no evidence of a difference in the overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18) (low quality evidence), final ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43, P = 0.92), PAR score (MD 0.62, 95% CI -0.66 to 1.91, P = 0.34) or self concept score (MD 0.83, CI -2.31 to 3.97, P = 0.60). However, two-phase treatment with functional appliance showed a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, P = 0.04) (moderate quality evidence). The incidence of incisal trauma was clinically significant with 29% (54/185) of patients reporting new trauma incidence in the adolescent (one-phase) treatment group compared to only 20% (34/172) of patients receiving early (two-phase) treatment.Two trials (n = 285), compared early (two-phase) treatment using headgear, with adolescent (one-phase) treatment. Statistically significant differences in overjet and ANB were found in favour of headgear when the first phase of early treatment was compared with observation in the children due to receive treatment in adolescence. However, at the end of treatment in both groups, there was no evidence of a difference in the overjet (MD 0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12, P = 0.20) (low quality evidence), final ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26, P = 0.32) or PAR score (MD -1.55, 95% CI -3.70 to 0.60, P = 0.16). The incidence of incisal trauma was, however, statistically significantly reduced in the two-phase treatment group (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83, P = 0.009) (low quality evidence). The adolescent treatment group showed twice the incidence of incisal trauma (47/120) compared to the young children group (27/117).Two trials (n = 282) compared different types of appliances (headgear and functional appliance) for early (two-phase) treatment. At the end of the first phase of treatment statistically significant differences, in favour of functional appliances, were shown with respect to final overjet only. At the end of phase two, there was no evidence of a difference between appliances with regard to overjet (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.15, P = 0.26), final ANB (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.34, P= 0.52), PAR score (MD -0.81, 95% CI -2.21 to 0.58, P = 0.25) or the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.44, P = 0.44).Late orthodontic treatment for adolescents with functional appliances showed a statistically significant reduction in overjet of -5.22 mm (95% CI -6.51 to -3.93, P < 0.00001) and ANB of -2.37� (95% CI -3.01 to -1.74, P < 0.00001) when compared to no treatment (very low quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference in overjet when Twin Block was compared to other appliances (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.48, P = 0.95). However, a statistically significant reduction in ANB (-0.63�, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.08, P = 0.02) was shown in favour of Twin Block. There was no evidence of a difference in any reported outcome when Twin Block was compared with modifications of Twin Block.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of Activator, FORSUS FRD EZ appliances, R-appliance or AIBP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective in reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment when the child is in early adolescence. There appears to be no other advantages for providing treatment early when compared to treatment in adolescence.

  • Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth in children
    Australian Dental Journal, 2008
    Co-Authors: Jayne E Harrison, Kevin D. O'brien, Helen V Worthington
    Abstract:

    Background: Prominent upper front teeth are an important and potentially harmful type of orthodontic problem. This condition develops when the childs permanent teeth erupt and children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with Dental Braces to reduce the prominence of the teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait until the child is older and provide treatment in early adolescence. When treatment is provided during adolescence the orthodontist may provide treatment with various orthodontic Braces, but there is currently little evidence of the relative effectiveness of the different Braces that can be used. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth, when this treatment is provided when the child is 7 to 9 years old or when they are in early adolescence or with different Dental Braces or both. Search strategy: The Cochrane Oral Health Groups Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. The handsearching of the key international orthodontic journals was updated to December 2006. There were no restrictions in respect to language or status of publication. Date of most recent searches: February 2007. * design - randomized and controlled clinical trials; * participants - children or adolescents (age < 16 years) or both receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth; * interventions - active: any orthodontic brace or head-brace, control: no or delayed treatment or another active intervention; * primary outcomes - prominence of the upper front teeth, relationship between upper and lower jaws; * secondary outcomes: self esteem, any injury to the upper front teeth, jaw joint problems, patient satisfaction, number of attendances required to complete treatment. Data collection and analysis: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted independently and in duplicate by two review authors. The Cochrane Oral Health Groups statistical guidelines were followed and mean differences were calculated using random-effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined. Main results: The search strategy identified 185 titles and abstracts. From this we obtained 105 full reports for the review. Eight trials, based on data from 592 patients who presented with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, were included in the review. Early treatment comparisons: Three trials, involving 432 participants, compared early treatment with a functional appliance with no treatment. There was a significant difference in final overjet of the treatment group compared with the control group of ?4.04 mm (95% CI ?7.47 to ?0.6, chi squared 117.02, 2 df, P < 0.00001, I2 = 98.3%). There was a significant difference in ANB (?1.35 mm; 95% CI ?2.57 to ?0.14, chi squared 9.17, 2 df, P = 0.01, I2 = 78.2%) and change in ANB (?0.55; 95% CI ?0.92 to ?0.18, chi squared 5.71, 1 df, P = 0.06, I2 = 65.0%) between the treatment and control groups. The comparison of the effect of treatment with headgear versus untreated control revealed that there was a small but significant effect of headgear treatment on overjet of ?1.07 (95% CI ?1.63 to ?0.51, chi squared 0.05, 1 df, P = 0.82, I2 = 0%). Similarly, headgear resulted in a significant reduction in final ANB of ?0.72 (95% CI ?1.18 to ?0.27, chi squared 0.34, 1 df, P = 0.56, I2 = 0%). No significant differences, with respect to final overjet, ANB, or ANB change, were found between the effects of early treatment with headgear and the functional appliances. Adolescent treatment (Phase II): At the end of all treatment we found that there were no significant differences in overjet, final ANB or PAR score between the children who had a course of early treatment, with headgear or a functional appliance, and those who had not received early treatment. Similarly, there were no significant differences in overjet, final ANB or PAR score between children who had received a course of early treatment with headgear or a functional appliance. One trial found a significant reduction in overjet (?5.22 mm; 95% CI ?6.51 to ?3.93) and ANB (?2.27 degrees; 95% CI ?3.22 to ?1.31, chi squared 1.9, 1 df, P = 0.17, I2 = 47.3%) for adolescents receiving one-phase treatment with a functional appliance versus an untreated control. A statistically significant reduction of ANB (?0.68 degrees; 95% CI ?1.32 to ?0.04, chi squared 0.56, 1 df, P = 0.46, I2 = 0%) with the Twin Block appliance when compared to other functional appliances. However, there was no significant effect of the type of appliance on the final overjet. Authors conclusions: The evidence suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is no more effective than providing one course of orthodontic treatment when the child is in early adolescence.

  • The Cochrane Library - Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth in children.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007
    Co-Authors: Jayne E Harrison, Kevin D. O'brien, Helen V Worthington
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Prominent upper front teeth are an important and potentially harmful type of orthodontic problem. This condition develops when the child's permanent teeth erupt and children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with Dental Braces to reduce the prominence of the teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait until the child is older and provide treatment in early adolescence. When treatment is provided during adolescence the orthodontist may provide treatment with various orthodontic Braces, but there is currently little evidence of the relative effectiveness of the different Braces that can be used. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth, when this treatment is provided when the child is 7 to 9 years old or when they are in early adolescence or with different Dental Braces or both. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. The handsearching of the key international orthodontic journals was updated to December 2006. There were no restrictions in respect to language or status of publication.Date of most recent searches: February 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - randomised and controlled clinical trials; participants - children or adolescents (age < 16 years) or both receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth; interventions - active: any orthodontic brace or head-brace, control: no or delayed treatment or another active intervention; primary outcomes - prominence of the upper front teeth, relationship between upper and lower jaws; secondary outcomes: self esteem, any injury to the upper front teeth, jaw joint problems, patient satisfaction, number of attendances required to complete treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted independently and in duplicate by two review authors.The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed and mean differences were calculated using random-effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy identified 185 titles and abstracts. From this we obtained 105 full reports for the review. Eight trials, based on data from 592 patients who presented with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, were included in the review.Early treatment comparisons: Three trials, involving 432 participants, compared early treatment with a functional appliance with no treatment. There was a significant difference in final overjet of the treatment group compared with the control group of -4.04 mm (95% CI -7.47 to -0.6, chi squared 117.02, 2 df, P < 0.00001, I(2) = 98.3%). There was a significant difference in ANB (-1.35 mm; 95% CI -2.57 to -0.14, chi squared 9.17, 2 df, P = 0.01, I(2) = 78.2%) and change in ANB (-0.55; 95% CI -0.92 to -0.18, chi squared 5.71, 1 df, P = 0.06, I(2) = 65.0%) between the treatment and control groups.The comparison of the effect of treatment with headgear versus untreated control revealed that there was a small but significant effect of headgear treatment on overjet of -1.07 (95% CI -1.63 to -0.51, chi squared 0.05, 1 df, P = 0.82, I(2) = 0%). Similarly, headgear resulted in a significant reduction in final ANB of -0.72 (95% CI -1.18 to -0.27, chi squared 0.34, 1 df, P = 0.56, I(2) = 0%). No significant differences, with respect to final overjet, ANB, or ANB change, were found between the effects of early treatment with headgear and the functional appliances. Adolescent treatment (Phase II): At the end of all treatment we found that there were no significant differences in overjet, final ANB or PAR score between the children who had a course of early treatment, with headgear or a functional appliance, and tho

Torkil Menné - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • release of nickel ions from stainless steel alloys used in Dental Braces and their patch test reactivity in nickel sensitive individuals
    Contact Dermatitis, 2003
    Co-Authors: Christian Jensen, Steen Lisby, Ole Baadsgaard, Kirsten Byrialsen, Torkil Menné
    Abstract:

    : Nickel ions leached in sufficient quantities from nickel-containing alloys may induce nickel sensitization or elicit allergic contact dermatitis. Nickel-containing stainless steel alloys are generally considered safe for nickel-sensitive individuals to use. The study summarized in this paper investigated 3 parameters. First, the release of nickel was estimated in artificial saliva and sweat from 4 different stainless steel alloys frequently used in Dental Braces. Second, in a pilot study, oral mucosa cells harvested from 3 Dental patients before and after the attachment of Dental Braces were analysed for possible nickel content. Third, patch test reactivity of the 4 stainless steel alloys was tested on 31 nickel-sensitive subjects. All 4 stainless steel alloys released small amounts of nickel ions into artificial saliva (<0.13 micro g/cm2/week) and artificial sweat (<0.05 micro g/cm2/week), but no measurable amounts of nickel were found in any of the oral mucosa samples. None of the 31 nickel-sensitive subjects reacted to patch testing with the 4 stainless steel alloys, indicating that these stainless steel alloys would be safe to use in direct and prolonged contact with the skin.

  • Release of nickel ions from stainless steel alloys used in Dental Braces and their patch test reactivity in nickel‐sensitive individuals
    Contact dermatitis, 2003
    Co-Authors: Christian Jensen, Steen Lisby, Ole Baadsgaard, Kirsten Byrialsen, Torkil Menné
    Abstract:

    Nickel ions leached in sufficient quantities from nickel-containing alloys may induce nickel sensitization or elicit allergic contact dermatitis. Nickel-containing stainless steel alloys are generally considered safe for nickel-sensitive individuals to use. The study summarized in this paper investigated 3 parameters. First, the release of nickel was estimated in artificial saliva and sweat from 4 different stainless steel alloys frequently used in Dental Braces. Second, in a pilot study, oral mucosa cells harvested from 3 Dental patients before and after the attachment of Dental Braces were analysed for possible nickel content. Third, patch test reactivity of the 4 stainless steel alloys was tested on 31 nickel-sensitive subjects. All 4 stainless steel alloys released small amounts of nickel ions into artificial saliva (

Declan T. Millett - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Cochrane Library - Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017
    Co-Authors: Declan T. Millett, N. A. Mandall, Rye Mattick, Joy Hickman, Anne-marie Glenny
    Abstract:

    Background Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (Dental Braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being glued to the teeth so that they do not become detached during treatment. Brackets (metal squares) are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round each tooth) are more commonly used. Orthodontic tubes (stainless steel tubes that allow wires to pass through them), are typically welded to bands but they may also be glued directly (bonded) to molars. Failure of brackets, bands and bonded molar tubes slows down the progress of treatment with a fixed appliance. It can also be costly in terms of clinical time, materials and time lost from education/work for the patient. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2011. A new full search was conducted on 15 February 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane review remain the same. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes, and the relative effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes versus adhesives used to attach bands, during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the tubes (or bands) come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the bonded (or banded) teeth against decay. Search methods The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 February 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 February 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 February 2017). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes, bonded to first or second permanent molars. Trials which compared any type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (stainless steel or titanium) with any other adhesive, were included. Trials were also included where: (1) a tube was bonded to a molar tooth on one side of an arch and a band cemented to the same tooth type on the opposite side of the same arch; (2) molar tubes had been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group. Data collection and analysis The selection of papers, decision about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. Main results Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. Authors' conclusions From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions.

  • The Cochrane Library - Orthodontic treatment for deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006
    Co-Authors: Declan T. Millett, Kevin D. O'brien, Susan J. Cunningham, Philip E. Benson, Cesar De Oliveira
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Correction of the type of Dental problem where the bite is deep and the upper front teeth are retroclined (Class II division 2 malocclusion) may be carried out using different types of orthodontic treatment. However, in severe cases, surgery to the jaws in combination with orthodontics may be required. In growing children, treatment may sometimes be carried out using special upper and lower Dental Braces (functional appliances) that can be removed from the mouth. In many cases this treatment does not involve taking out any permanent teeth. Often, however, further treatment is needed with fixed Braces to get the best result. In other cases, treatment aims to move the upper first permanent molars backwards to provide space for the correction of the front teeth. This may be carried out by applying a force to the teeth and jaws from the back of the head using a head brace (headgear) and transmitting this force to a part of a fixed or removable Dental brace. This treatment may or may not involve the removal of permanent teeth. In some cases, neither functional appliances nor headgear are required and treatment may be carried out without extraction of any permanent teeth. Instead of using a headgear, in certain cases, the back teeth are held back in other ways such as with an arch across or in contact with the front of the roof of the mouth which links two bands glued to the back teeth. Often in these cases, two permanent teeth are taken out from the middle of the upper arch (one on each side) to provide room to correct the upper front teeth. It is important for orthodontists to find out whether orthodontic treatment only, carried out without the removal of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion produces a result which is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment only involving extraction of permanent teeth. OBJECTIVES: To establish whether orthodontic treatment, carried out without the removal of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion, produces a result which is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment involving removal of permanent teeth. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. The handsearching of the main international orthodontic journals was updated to April 2006. There were no restrictions with regard to publication status or language of publication. International researchers, likely to be involved in Class II division 2 clinical trials, were contacted to identify any unpublished or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of orthodontic treatments to correct deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs or CCTs were identified that assessed the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusion in children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to provide any evidence-based guidance to recommend or discourage any type of orthodontic treatment to correct Class II division 2 malocclusion in children.