Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Systematic reviews (SRs) are published with an increasing rate in many fields of biomedical literature, including orthodontics. Although SRs should consolidate the evidence-based characteristics of contemporary orthodontic practice, doubts on the validity of their conclusions have been frequently expressed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodology and quality characteristics of orthodontic SRs as well as to assess their quality of reporting during the last years. Electronic databases were searched for SRs (without any meta-analytical data synthesis) in the field of orthodontics, indexed up to the start of 2010. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool was used for quality assessment of the included articles. Data were analyzed with Student's t-test, one-way ANOVA, and linear regression. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to represent changes during the years in reporting of key items associated with quality. A total of 110 SRs were included in this evaluation. About half of the SRs (46.4%) were published in orthodontic journals, while few (5.5%) were updates of previously published reviews. Using the AMSTAR tool, thirty (27.3%) of the SRs were found to be of low quality, 63 (57.3%) of medium quality, and 17 (15.5%) of high quality. No significant trend for quality improvement was observed during the last years. The overall quality of orthodontic SRs may be considered as medium. Although the number of orthodontic SRs has increased over the last decade, their quality characteristics can be characterized as moderate.     

More than lip service: facial esthetics in orthodontics.

BACKGROUND: Current trends in orthodontic care emphasize alternatives to the extraction of premolars, despite a lack of support from the refereed literature for many of the nonextraction treatments. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITUATION: Anecdotal reports published in non-peer-reviewed journals have called into question the esthetic effects of extraction treatment. As calls for evidence-based treatments increase throughout dentistry, reports on the effects--both positive and negative--of different orthodontic options have appeared in growing numbers. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Given the results of a variety of reports in the peer-reviewed literature, it may be concluded that orthodontic treatment involving extractions can produce improved esthetics for many patients who have some combination of crowding and protrusion. However, careful diagnosis followed by evidence-based treatment decisions should be the accepted clinical norm as the specialty of orthodontics embarks on its second century.     

A systematic review of Swedish research in orthodontics during the past decade

The aims of this systematic review were to identify the study designs and topics of Swedish orthodontic articles, to elucidate their international position, and to verify in which scientific journals the articles had been published in the past decade. A search of the Medline database for papers published between 1992 and 2002 was made using the Medical Search Heading terms 'orthodontics', 'malocclusion', 'cephalometry', and 'facial bones and growth'. Two independent reviewers selected the articles of Swedish origin and categorized each article according to research design and principal topic. Overall, 15,571 articles in orthodontic research were found, and the Swedish contribution was 1.9% with the majority of these (71.5%) being submitted by universities. Most of the Swedish articles (84.5%) had been published in 10 journals and many high-quality studies with orthodontic interest were published in non-orthodontic journals with higher impact factor scores than the orthodontic journals. Every second study was prospective, and of these, 15 (5.2% of all Swedish articles) were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It was found that nearly every third study, prospective as well as retrospective, was uncontrolled. The main classification was treatment studies (51.9%), followed by development (18.6%) and diagnostic information (10.7%) studies. Thus, the majority of the articles evaluated therapeutic interventions; however, although the RCT is the preferred study design in evaluation studies, few used this method. In an era focused on evidence-based medicine, studies with an RCT design will be the future challenge for research in the field of orthodontics.     

A systematic review of Swedish research in orthodontics during the past decade

The aims of this systematic review were to identify the study designs and topics of Swedish orthodontic articles, to elucidate their international position, and to verify in which scientific journals the articles had been published in the past decade. A search of the Medline database for papers published between 1992 and 2002 was made using the Medical Search Heading terms ‘orthodontics’, ‘malocclusion’, ‘cephalometry’, and ‘facial bones and growth’. Two independent reviewers selected the articles of Swedish origin and categorized each article according to research design and principal topic. Overall, 15,571 articles in orthodontic research were found, and the Swedish contribution was 1.9% with the majority of these (71.5%) being submitted by universities. Most of the Swedish articles (84.5%) had been published in 10 journals and many high‐quality studies with orthodontic interest were published in non‐orthodontic journals with higher impact factor scores than the orthodontic journals. Every second study was prospective, and of these, 15 (5.2% of all Swedish articles) were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It was found that nearly every third study, prospective as well as retrospective, was uncontrolled. The main classification was treatment studies (51.9%), followed by development (18.6%) and diagnostic information (10.7%) studies. Thus, the majority of the articles evaluated therapeutic interventions; however, although the RCT is the preferred study design in evaluation studies, few used this method. In an era focused on evidence‐based medicine, studies with an RCT design will be the future challenge for research in the field of orthodontics.     

正畸骨皮质切开术加速牙移动机制的研究进展

正畸骨皮质切开术作为一种外科手段，可在正畸治疗过程中通过安全有效的方法加速牙移动，对健康正畸有着重要的临床意义。在微创前提下有效加速牙移动是目前临床热点之一。该文就正畸骨皮质切开术的起源、临床进展、正畸牙移动的生物学基础以及其加速牙移动的机制进行综述。     

四种口腔专业期刊十年正畸临床论著循证医学质量评估

目的 对四种口腔专业期刊十年的正畸临床论著进行循证医学质量评估,为国内口腔正畸临床试验设计以及论著写作提供参考.方法 手工检索1999至2008年<中华口腔医学杂志>、<华西口腔医学杂志>、<实用口腔医学杂志>和<口腔正畸学>发表的正畸临床论著,提取分析论著的基本信息,对临床试验的设计进行分类评价,采用临床试验统一报告标准(consolidated standards of reporting trials,CONSORT)建立的临床试验评价标准进行质量评估.结果 共提取494篇正畸临床论著,其中有基金支持的占21.3%(105/494).所有论著中前瞻性试验占26.1%(129/494),随机对照临床试验仅有3.8%(19/494).大多数论著由于方法学部分相关信息缺失,无法进行全面的方法学质量评价.即使是随机对照临床试验,其随机方法、分配方式的隐藏、盲法的采用以及应用基线数据分析等方面也不完善.结论 口腔正畸临床试验应在试验设计及论著写作两方面进一步提高.     

Evidence-based care in orthodontics and periodontics: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND: In this article, the author reviews the evidence-based literature in the fields of periodontics and orthodontics to clarify the relationship between orthodontic tooth movement and various types of common periodontal disorders. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The first section is a review of the literature on common periodontal disorders. The second is a review of evidence-based studies in the combined fields of orthodontics and periodontics, with a focus on orthodontic treatment possibilities, limitations and risks inherent in patients with periodontal disorders, particularly active periodontal disease. RESULTS: The literature on orthodontic tooth movement as it relates to periodontal disease shows that proper orthodontic treatment in patients with excellent oral hygiene and the absence of significant periodontal disorders should not pose any significant periodontal risk. In the presence of poor oral hygiene, however, and under circumstances of certain types of periodontal disorders, fixed orthodontic appliances and tooth movement can contribute to significant deleterious periodontal consequences. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This review provides a clear understanding of what is known about orthodontic treatment possibilities, limitations and inherent risks in patients who may have certain types of periodontal disorders. It also underscores the importance of teamwork among the restorative dentist, periodontist and orthodontist when planning treatment for these patients. The author also offers a specific patient management protocol for this interdisciplinary dental team to follow.     

Facial aesthetics in orthodontics

Current trends in orthodontic care emphasise alternatives to the extraction of premolars, despite a lack of support from the refereed literature for many of the non-extraction treatments. Anecdotal reports published in non peer-reviewed journals have called into question the aesthetic effects of extraction treatment. As calls for evidence-based treatments increase throughout dentistry, reports on the effects--both positive and negative--of different orthodontic options have appeared in growing numbers. Given the results of a variety of reports in the peer-reviewed literature, it may be concluded that orthodontic treatment involving extractions can produce improved aesthetics for many patients who have some combination of crowding and protrusion. However, careful diagnosis followed by evidence-based treatment decisions should be the accepted clinical norm as the specialty of Orthodontics embarks on its second century.     

Benchmarking the clinical orthodontic evidence on Medline

The purpose of this study was to identify and quantify the availability of orthodontic literature for evidence-based clinical decision-making (ie, sound clinical studies of etiology, diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis meeting basic methodologic criteria for direct clinical use). This is a first step toward developing online decision analysis systems. A search strategy based on Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) for orthodontics was developed to examine MEDLINE using the Ovid Web Gateway search engine. Sensitive and specific methodologic search filters were then employed to identify the 4 categories of information. The results were then subdivided by year to identify trends and sorted to identify source of publications. In the period 1990 to 1998, the MEDLINE searches identified 6938 English-language articles about orthodontics. The mean number of articles (+/-SD) per year ranged from 42+/-25 for specific searches to 314+/-214 for sensitive searches. The number of articles identified by the specific or sensitive searches increased 14% to 21% annually. When subdivided by clinical category, the mean numbers of articles per year for specific and sensitive searches were respectively: etiology 19+/-15 and 91+/-37, diagnosis 11+/-5 and 80+/-35, therapy 3+/-1 and 50+/-23, and prognosis 10+/-7 and 93+/-33. Five dental journals accounted for nearly half of these publications. These results provide several key findings: (1) there is a substantial literature of clinically relevant information in orthodontics upon which to base clinical decisions; (2) the information appears to be balanced between etiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis; (3) approximately 45% of the articles reside in 5 journals, whereas the remainder reside in approximately 66 other journals, making it difficult to stay current; (4) the number of articles is increasing significantly each year; (5) to stay current, one would need to read between 1 and 6 articles per week, 52 weeks per year; (6) these trends suggest the need for computer-based clinical knowledge systems; and (7) the methods used here can be immediately employed to identify the best and most current clinical orthodontic evidence.     

Orthodontics and temporomandibular disorders: a review of the literature (1966-1988)

The orthodontist has been both accused of causing and complimented for curing temporomandibular dysfunction. To better understand the origins of these conflicting opinions, a review of the orthodontic and temporomandibular joint journals was performed for articles published since 1966. A total of 91 publications that discussed the relationship between orthodontics and temporomandibular disorders was found, and these articles were divided in three categories: viewpoint publications, case reports, and sample studies. Among the areas scrutinized in each category was the method that has led to the diversity of viewpoints. From this analysis, the following conclusions were drawn: (1) viewpoint publications and case reports were excessively represented in comparison with the number of sample studies; (2) viewpoint publications and case reports described a wide variety of conflicting opinions on the relationship between orthodontics and temporomandibular disorders; (3) unlike sample studies, viewpoint publications and case reports have little or no value in assessment of the relationship between orthodontics and temporomandibular disorders; (4) sample studies indicate that orthodontic treatment is not responsible for creating temporomandibular disorders, regardless of the orthodontic technique; and (5) sample studies indicate that orthodontic treatment is not specific or necessary to cure signs and symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction.     

Interfaces between orthodontic and periodontal treatment

The contextual relationships between orthodontics and periodontology are diverse and complex. While the consequences of orthodontic tooth movements are discussed in terms of possible damage and improvements in the long-term health of periodontal tissues orthodontic treatment of adults is a routine clinical procedure nowadays, even in patients presenting already-damaged periodontal tissues. As developments in both fields have been so rapid, there is a constant need for evidence-based concepts in this interdisciplinary field. The goal of this review was to discuss the latest aspects of interdisciplinary treatment and to reflect on the latest developments in research. A treatment scheme is also presented which aims to facilitate coordination of the orthodontic treatment of patients with periodontal diseases.     

The Characteristics and Level of Evidence of Clinical Studies Published in 5 Leading Orthodontic Journals

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to assess the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies recently published in leading orthodontic journals and to explore the association between the LOE and potentially related factors.MethodsThe official online archives of 5 leading orthodontic journals were hand-searched to identify clinical research articles published during the period 2015-2017. The LOE of all included studies was assessed using a modified LOE classification system developed based on the Oxford LOE and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the association between the LOE of each article (high LOE vs. low LOE) and 7 factors.ResultsA total of 637 studies were included and assessed. Of these, 8 (1.3%) were of level 1, 160 (25.1%) level 2, 326 (51.2%) level 3, and 143 (22.4%) level 4. According to multivariable logistic regression analyses, journal of publication (P < .001), funding status (P = .003), and the geographic origin of the first author (P = .006) were significantly associated with the LOE.ConclusionsThe number of studies with high LOE in leading orthodontic journals was limited. There is still need for further improvement in the overall LOE of clinical studies in orthodontics.     

Bone anchorage in orthodontics. A review

The achievement of absolute anchorage in orthodontics overcoming the reaction forces and moments has been problematic for a long time. This was caused on the one hand by the limitations of the devices available and on the other hand by the dependence on patient cooperation. The introduction of bone anchorage systems changed the traditional way of thinking on orthodontic anchorage. Whereas the application of anchor systems, such as palatal implants and onplants, has specific indications, bone screws with or without plates seem to have the potential of being used on a routine basis. However, appropriate data for more complete understanding of the biological and biomechanical background of this concept of orthodontic anchorage are still lacking. Furthermore, studies on the effectiveness of these systems when compared to the traditional orthodontic anchorage and based on large groups of patients are not available. Well-designed prospective clinical trials substantiating the evidence-based use of these devices are needed.     

The effectiveness of computer-aided learning in teaching orthodontics: a review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this review were to evaluate the effectiveness of computer-aided learning (CAL) in orthodontic education, to make evidence-based recommendations for the use of CAL in orthodontics, and to develop guidelines for conducting comparative trials to evaluate CAL as a mode of learning in orthodontic education. METHODS: Medline, the Cochrane Library Database, ERIC, CINAHL, LISA, Psycinfo, and IPA were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of CAL in orthodontics. Outcome measures included objectively measured posttest scores on multiple choice, written, or oral tests; performance on a clinical procedure or clinical interview; time spent on CAL programs to learn the material presented; and responses to questionnaires conveying participants' attitudes toward various modes of learning. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials comparing CAL with conventional teaching fulfilled the inclusion criteria and met the cutoff quality assessment checklist (QAC) score of > or = 8. Each study was assessed for quality by 2 independent reviewers. The validity and strength of the selected studies were assessed by using a QAC for an educational intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The controlled trials of CAL in orthodontics that met our QAC cutoff score of 8 were split, with 2 showing that CAL enjoyed a significant advantage over conventional teaching, 1 showing no difference, and 1 showing that the conventional tutorial method was better. More high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of CAL in orthodontics are needed. CAL programs in orthodontics elicit mostly positive responses and attitudes from students toward learning.     

八年制口腔正畸学实训课教学改革与探索

根据长学制的学情分析以及口腔正畸学科特点,我们对八年制口腔正畸学的实训课教学进行了一系列改革,包括更新教学内容,引入Typodont和PBL病例讨论教学模式,推广以循证正畸学为核心的学术活动。实践证明教学改革极大地提高了学员的学习兴趣以及分析问题、解决问题的能力,获得了满意的教学效果。     

Systematic reviews in orthodontics: what have we learned?

The literature is becoming replete with systematic reviews of orthodontic-related topics. However, their findings have not been appraised and summarised collectively. METHODS: Systematic reviews related to orthodontics published between 1 January 2000, and 31 January 2007 were identified and reviewed. RESULTS: Fifty-one orthodontic systematic reviews were identified in the defined period. A highly significant percentage of reviews (29%) failed to reach conclusions. Conclusions were made in the remaining reviews although many relied on secondary levels of evidence to do so. In this narrative review the findings from these studies are summarised. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews in orthodontic-related areas have produced some interesting findings. However an unacceptably high number continue to be inconclusive, reflecting methodological inadequacies of the review process and exposing inadequacies in our evidence base.     

Developing outcome measuresin orthodontics that reflect patient and provider values

During the past decade, emphasis in orthodontics has been directed toward the development of outcome measures from both the patient and clinician perspectives. New methodological standards of rigor have been introduced into research design to eliminate bias and test well-defined questions. Sample size calculations and established exclusion and inclusion criteria define sample populations and the ability to statistically accept or reject hypothesis-driven clinical studies. Although advances in our understanding of evidence-based medicine and dentistry from the provider perspective have been productive, the emerging value placed on patient perspective has not been as forthcoming. The emphasis placed on patient-oriented clinical research has resulted in new constructs of surveys and questionnaires in which the items are derived and tested from the patient's point of view. Because orthodontics is a condition without the natural history of a disease process for which no intervention has predictable consequences, new strategies have been developed to estimate need and demand for orthodontic treatment. Studies to measure seekers and nonseekers of orthodontic treatment are reported, as well as sex and cross-cultural issues in the use of established process and outcome measures. The design of clinical studies is discussed in the context of future directions for clinical research, and the usefulness of the information generated will directly relate to providing patients with the necessary information to make decisions and hence knowledgeably give informed consent for treatment interventions.     

Does orthodontics damage faces?

With the increasing provision of orthodontic care in this country, certain practitioners have raised concerns regarding the use of elective extractions and retraction mechanics, especially the effects on the facial profile and the TMJ. The non-extraction versus extraction debate spans the history of orthodontics, and the concepts of facial attractiveness are subject to change as fashions change. Within the realms of evidence-based practice, there is little or no evidence to suggest that the philosophies and mechanics of contemporary orthodontics, in the vast majority of cases, cause damage to the profile or are directly linked to the development of TMJ dysfunction.     

上颌横向发育不足的研究进展

上颌横向发育不足是临床中常见的错(牙合)畸形。准确判断有无上颌横向发育不足是正畸临床诊断、制定治疗方案和实现矫治目标的重要前提。本文就上牙弓和上颌骨的横向发育、上颌横向发育不足的病因及常用的诊断方法作一综述,以期为正畸临床提供有效参考。