Communication practices and preferences between orthodontists and general dentists

Objective:To evaluate similarities and differences in orthodontists'' and general dentists'' perceptions regarding their interdisciplinary communication.Materials and Methods:Orthodontists (N  =  137) and general dentists (N  =  144) throughout the United States responded to an invitation to participate in a Web-based and mailed survey, respectively.Results:The results indicated that orthodontists communicated with general dentists using the type of media general dentists preferred to use. As treatment complexity increased, orthodontists shifted from one-way forms of communication (letters) to two-way forms of communication (phone calls; P < .05). Both orthodontists and general dentists reported that orthodontists'' communication regarding white spot lesions was inadequate. When treating patients with missing or malformed teeth, orthodontists reported that they sought input from the general dentists at a higher rate than the general dentists reported (P < .005).Conclusions:Orthodontists'' and general dentists'' perceptions of how often specific types of media were used for interdisciplinary communication were generally similar. They differed, however, with regard to how adequately orthodontists communicated with general dentists and how often orthodontists sought input from general dentists. The methods and extent of communication between orthodontists and general dentists need to be determined on a patient-by-patient basis.     

Treatment time,outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets

Objective:To compare the treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss among orthodontic patients treated by self-ligating brackets (SLBs) and conventional brackets (CBs).Materials and Methods:A retrospective cohort study compared 34 patients (SLB group) treated by SmartClip brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) to 35 patients (CB group) treated by conventional preadjusted Victory series brackets (3M Unitek) and ligated by stainless steel wire ligatures. Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalograms were traced and analyzed using Pancherz sagittal-occlusion analysis to obtain skeletal and dental changes in the maxilla and the mandible. The dental cast models were assessed by the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index for the treatment outcomes.Results:The mean treatment time for SLBs (19.19 months) did not show a statistically significant difference from 21.25 months of CBs; the treatment time and pretreatment PAR scores were strongly correlated. There was no difference in anchorage loss between the SLB and CB groups. There were significant dental and skeletal changes among adolescent orthodontic patients regardless of the bracket used. The lingual inclination of the mandibular incisors in the CB group was 3.62° more than in the SLB group (P < .01).Conclusions:The treatment time and anchorage loss are not influenced by the type of bracket used. There are significant dental and skeletal changes among adolescent orthodontic patients regardless of the bracket used. There is significantly greater lingual inclination of mandibular incisors in the CB group than in the SLB group.     

Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding

Objective:To evaluate whether the debonding procedure leads to restitutio ad integrum of the enamel surface by investigating the presence of enamel within the bracket base remnants after debonding.Materials and Methods:Sixty patients who completed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances were included. A total of 1068 brackets were microphotographed; the brackets presenting some remnants on the base (n  =  818) were selected and analyzed with ImageJ software to measure the remnant area. From this population a statistically significant sample (n  =  100) was observed under a scanning electron microscope to check for the presence of enamel within the remnants. Energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry was also performed to obtain quantitative data.Results:Statistically significant differences in the remnant percentage between arches were observed for incisor and canine brackets (P < .0001 and P  =  .022, respectively). From a morphologic analysis of the scanning electron micrographs the bracket bases were categorized in 3 groups: group A, bases presenting a thin enamel coat (83%); group B, bases showing sizable enamel fragments (7%); group C, bases with no morphologic evidence of enamel presence (10%). Calcium presence was noted on all evaluated brackets under energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry. No significant difference was observed in the Ca/Si ratio between group A (16.21%) and group B (18.77%), whereas the Ca/Si ratio in group C (5.40%) was significantly lower than that of the other groups (P < .323 and P  =  .0001, respectively).Conclusion:The objective of an atraumatic debonding is not achieved yet; in some cases the damage could be clinically relevant.     

Effect of the bracket types on microbial colonization and periodontal status

Objective:To evaluate the effect of different bracket types on the levels of Streptococcus mutans (SM) and Lactobacillus (LB) in saliva, in plaque, and on the periodontal condition.Materials and Methods:Forty patients aged 14 to 16 years, who had Angle Class I malocclusion with minimal crowding, were nonsmokers, were without systematic disease, and did not use antibiotics or oral mouth rinses during the 3-month period before the study were randomly selected. The patients were subdivided into two groups with random allocation of bracket type: conventional brackets (CB; Avex Mx, OPAL orth.) with steel wire ligature or self-ligating brackets (SLB; F1000, Leone S.p.A.). Microbial and periodontal records were obtained before bonding (T₁) and 1 month after bonding (T₂). Microbial samples were collected from the stimulated saliva and the plaque from the labial surfaces of the upper and lower lateral incisors. To estimate the number of colony-forming units of SM and LB, Dentocult SM and LB kits were used. The plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and pocket depth (PD) values were recorded to evaluate the periodontal condition. Paired t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the groups statistically.Results:No significant differences occurred in SM or LB colonization between the groups. In the SLB group, PI, GI, and PD values increased significantly (P < .05). A greater increase was found in PD value in the SLB group (0.98 mm) compared with the CB group (0.04 mm; P < .05).Conclusions:The F1000 SLB do not have an advantage over Avex Mx CB with respect to periodontal status and colonization of SM and LB.     

Parents' preferences regarding appearance and attire of orthodontists

Objective:To evaluate parents'' preferences regarding the appearance and attire of orthodontists.Materials and Methods:Parents attending their child''s first orthodontic appointment were asked to choose from among sets of photographs of potential orthodontic providers. Selected factors were varied within the sets, including sex and age of the provider as well as attire (casual, formal, white coat, or scrubs), hairstyle (loose or tied back for women, facial hair or clean shaven for men), and presence of a nametag.Results:A total of 77 parents participated. There were significant differences in choice of provider in terms of the provider''s sex (P < .0001), age (P  =  .0013), dress (P < .0001), hair (P < .0001), and nametag (P  =  .0065). There were no significant differences in preference attributable to parent characteristics (P > .05).Conclusion:Parents of orthodontic patients demonstrated clear preferences for choosing a provider related to factors that are not within the control of the practitioner (sex and age) as well as factors that can be changed by the practitioner (attire, hairstyle, and wearing a nametag).     

Effects of surface treatment and artificial aging on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to four different provisional restorations

Objective:To evaluate the combined effects of material type, surface treatment, and thermocycling on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets to materials used for the fabrication of provisional crowns.Materials and Methods:Four materials were included in this study (ProTemp, Trim Plus, Trim II, and Superpont C+B). Sixty cylindrical specimens (1 × 3 cm) were prepared from each material and equally divided into three groups. The first group was ground with silica carbide paper, the second was polished with pumice, and the last group was sandblasted with 50-µm aluminum oxide particles. Stainless-steel maxillary central incisor brackets (Victory Series, 3M) were bonded to the provisional material specimens with Transbond XT light-cured composite resin, and half of the specimens from each group were thermocycled 500 times in 5°C and 55°C water baths. Then the brackets were debonded with shear testing, and the results were statistically analyzed by three-way analysis of variance and Tukey''s multiple-comparison tests at α  =  0.05. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was also identified.Results:Before and after thermocycling, ProTemp materials showed the highest shear bond strength with orthodontic brackets (10.3 and 13.1 MPa, respectively). The statistical analysis indicated an interaction among the three independent variables (P < .05) and statistically significant differences in bond strength among provisional materials (P < .001), surface treatments (P < .001), and thermocycling (P < .05). According to the ARI, most groups demonstrated adhesive failure.Conclusions:The provisional material type, surface treatment, and artificial aging have a significant effect on bond strength. Sandblasting treatment exerts a beneficial effect on shear bond strength.     

Outcome assessment of orthodontic clear aligner vs fixed appliance treatment in a teenage population with mild malocclusions

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and efficiency of treatment in adolescents presenting with mild malocclusions, comparing outcomes using clear aligners to fixed appliances.Materials and MethodsPatients identified retrospectively and consecutively from one private practice had been treated with either clear aligners (Invisalign, Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) or fixed appliances (0.022 Damon, Ormco, Orange, Calif; n = 26/group). Assessments of occlusion were made using the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index (DI) for initial records and Cast-Radiograph Evaluation (CRE) for final records. Number of appointments, number of emergency visits, and overall treatment time were determined from chart reviews. Data were analyzed using Pearson''s correlation, Wilcoxon rank tests, unpaired t-tests, and Chi-square tests, with significance set to P ≤ .05.ResultsPretreatment, the aligner and fixed groups showed no significant difference in overall severity (DI: 11.9 ± 5.3 vs 11.6 ± 4.8) or in any individual DI category. Posttreatment scores showed finishes for the aligner group had fewer discrepancies from ideal relative to the fixed appliance group (CRE: 30.1 ± 8.3 vs 37.0 ± 9.3; P < .01). Patients treated with aligners had fewer appointments (13.7 ± 4.4 vs 19.3 ± 3.6; P < .0001), fewer emergency visits (0.8 ± 1.0 vs 3.6 ± 2.5; P < .0001), and shorter overall treatment time (16.9 ± 5.7 vs 23.4 ± 4.4 months; P < .0001).ConclusionsOutcomes for treatment of mild malocclusions in adolescents showed equivalent effectiveness of clear aligners compared to fixed appliances, with significantly improved results for clear aligner treatment in terms of tooth alignment, occlusal relations, and overjet. Assessment of the number of appointments, number of emergency visits, and overall treatment time showed better outcomes for treatment with clear aligners.     

Quantitative Light-induced Fluorescence-Digital as an oral hygiene evaluation tool to assess plaque accumulation and enamel demineralization in orthodontics

Objective:To assess the use of Quantitative Light-induced Fluorescence-Digital as an oral hygiene evaluation tool during orthodontic treatment.Materials and Methods:In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, 33 patients undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment were randomly allocated to receive oral hygiene reinforcement at four consecutive appointments using either white light (WL) or Quantitative Light-induced Fluorescence-Digital (QLF) images, taken with a device, as visual aids. Oral hygiene was recorded assessing the QLF images for demineralization, by fluorescence loss (ΔF), and plaque coverage (ΔR30). A debriefing questionnaire ascertained patient perspectives.Results:There were no significant differences in demineralization (P  =  .56) or plaque accumulation (P  =  .82) between the WL and QLF groups from T0 to T4. There was no significant reduction in demineralization, ΔF, in the WL, or the QLF group from T0–T4 (P > .05); however, there was a significant reduction in ΔR30 plaque scores (P < .05). All the participants found being shown the images helpful, with 100% of the QLF group reflecting that it would be useful to have oral hygiene reinforcement for the full duration of treatment compared with 81% of the WL group (OR 2.3; P < .05).Conclusions:Quantitative Light-induced Fluorescence-Digital can be used to detect and monitor demineralization and plaque during orthodontics. Oral hygiene reinforcement at consecutive appointments using WL or QLF images as visual aids is effective in reducing plaque coverage. In terms of clinical benefits, QLF and WL images are of similar effectiveness; however, patients preferred the QLF images.     

Effects of different bleaching methods on shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets

Objective:To evaluate the effects of different bleaching methods on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets.Materials and Methods:Forty-five freshly extracted premolars were randomly divided into three groups (n  =  15 per group). In group I, bleaching was performed with the office bleaching method. In group II, bleaching was performed with the home bleaching method. Group III served as the control. Orthodontic brackets were bonded with a light cure composite resin and cured with an LED light. After bonding, the SBS of the brackets were tested with a Universal testing machine.Results:Analysis of variance indicated a significant difference between groups (P < .001). The highest values for SBS were measured in group III (20.99 ± 2.32 MPa). The SBS was significantly lower in groups I and II than in group III (P < .001). The lowest values for SBS were measured in group II (6.42 ± 0.81 MPa). SBS was significantly higher in group I than in group II (P < .001).Conclusions:Both of the bleaching methods significantly affected the SBS of orthodontic brackets on human enamel. Bleaching with the home bleaching method affected SBS more adversely than did bleaching with the office bleaching method.     

Effect of adhesion boosters on indirect bracket bonding

Objective:To determine the influence of two adhesion boosters on shear bond strength and on the bond failure location of indirectly bonded brackets.Materials and Methods:Sixty bovine incisors were randomly divided into three groups (n  =  20), and their buccal faces were etched using 37% phosphoric acid. In group 1 (control), brackets were indirectly bonded using only Sondhi adhesive. In groups 2 and 3, the adhesion boosters Enhance Adhesion Booster and Assure Universal Bonding Resin, respectively, were applied before bonding with Sondhi. Maximum bond strength was measured with a universal testing machine, and the location of bond failure was evaluated using the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). One-way analysis of variance followed by the Tukey test (P < .05) was used to compare the shear bond strength among groups, and the differences in ARI scores were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P < .05). The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to determine whether there was any correlation between bond strength and ARI scores.Results:The mean shear bond strength in group 3 was significantly higher (P < .01) than in the other groups. Evaluation of the locations of bond failure revealed differences (P < .05) among the three groups. There was a moderate correlation between bond strength and ARI scores within group 3 (r  =  0.5860, P < .01).Conclusion:In vitro shear bond strength was acceptable in all groups. The use of the Assure adhesion booster significantly increased both the shear bond strength of indirectly bonded brackets and the amount of adhesive that remained on the enamel after bracket debonding.     

The effect of changes in primary attending doctor coverage frequency on orthodontic treatment time and results

Objective:To determine whether changes in primary attending (PA) doctor coverage frequency caused an increase in orthodontic treatment time or a decrease in the quality of treatment results in a postgraduate orthodontic clinic. The effect of T1 Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) scores on PA doctor coverage frequency, treatment times, and results was also evaluated.Materials and Methods:A sample of 191 postorthodontic subjects was divided into three groups based on PA doctor coverage (high, medium, or low). Treatment times, treatment results, and other variables were compared between the three PA coverage groups. Additionally, the sample was divided into three groups based on T1 PAR scores. Attending coverage frequency, treatment times, and results were compared between the T1 PAR groups.Results:No statistically significant differences were found in treatment time (P  =  .128) or results (P  =  .052). There were no statistically significant differences in the mean scores for T1 PAR (P  =  .056), T2 PAR (P  =  .602), patient age at T1 (P  =  .747), total appointments (P  =  .128), missed appointments (P  =  .177), or cancelled appointments (P  =  .183). Statistically significant differences were found between the low T1 PAR group and the medium and high T1 PAR groups (attending coverage, P  =  .008; results, P < .001; treatment time, P  =  .001).Conclusions:Under the conditions of this study, variations in PA doctor coverage frequency did not lengthen orthodontic treatment or reduce the quality of treatment results. Low T1 PAR scores were associated with less PA coverage, less change in PAR, and shorter treatment times.     

Debris,Roughness and Friction of Stainless Steel Archwires Following Clinical Use

Objective:To investigate the degree of debris, roughness, and friction of stainless steel orthodontic archwires before and after clinical use.Materials and Methods:For eight individuals, two sets of three brackets (n  =  16) each were bonded from the first molar to the first premolar. A passive segment of 0.019- × 0.025-inch stainless steel archwire was inserted into the brackets and tied by elastomeric ligature. Debris level (via scanning electron microscopy), roughness, and frictional force were evaluated as-received and after 8 weeks of intraoral exposure. Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and Spearman correlation tests were used for statistical analysis at the .05 level of significance.Results:There were significant increases in the level of debris (P  =  .0004), roughness of orthodontic wires (P  =  .002), and friction (P  =  .0001) after intraoral exposure. Significant positive correlations (P < .05) were observed between these three variables.Conclusion:Stainless steel rectangular wires, when exposed to the intraoral environment for 8 weeks, showed a significant increase in the degree of debris and surface roughness, causing an increase in friction between the wire and bracket during the mechanics of sliding.     

Suitability of orthodontic brackets for rebonding and reworking following removal by air pressure pulses and conventional debracketing techniques

Aim:To test the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in the reusability of debonded brackets with regard to debonding technique and adhesive used.Method:Ninety-six osteotomed third molars were randomly assigned to two study groups (n  =  48) for bonding of a 0.018-inch bracket (Ormesh, Ormco) with either a composite adhesive (Mono-Lok2; RMO) or a glass ionomer cement (GIC; Fuji Ortho LC;GC). Each of these two groups were then randomly divided into four subgroups (n  =  12) according to the method of debonding using (1) bracket removal pliers (BRP; Dentaurum), (2) a side cutter (SC; Dentaurum), (3) a lift-off debracketing instrument (LODI; 3M-Unitek), or (4) an air pressure pulse device (CoronaFlex; KaVo). The brackets were subsequently assessed visually for reusability and reworkability with 2× magnification and by pull testing with a 0.017- × 0.025-inch steel archwire. The proportions of reusable brackets were individually compared in terms of mode of removal and with regard to adhesives using the Fisher exact test (α  =  5%).Results:The null hypothesis was rejected. Not taking into account the debonding method, brackets bonded with GIC were judged to a significant extent (81%; n  =  39; P < .01) to be reworkable compared with those bonded with composite (56%; n  =  27). All brackets in both adhesive groups removed with either the LODI or the CoronaFlex were found to be reusable, whereas 79% (46%) of the brackets removed with the BRP (SC) were not. The proportion of reusable brackets differed significantly between modes of removal (P < .01).Conclusion:With regard to bracket reusability, the SC and the BRP cannot be recommended for debonding brackets, especially in combination with a composite adhesive.     

Patient attitudes toward retention and perceptions of treatment success

Objective:To discern patients'' opinions regarding responsibility for orthodontic retention and to determine whether patient attitudes toward retention are related to perceptions of treatment success.Materials and Methods:Questionnaires regarding orthodontic retention were distributed to first-year undergraduate college students (n  =  158), first-year dental students (n  =  183), and retention patients at orthodontic offices (n  =  214). Items included treatment satisfaction, perceived responsibility for retention, type of retainer prescribed, reasons for discontinuing use of retainers, and relapse experienced.Results:Four hundred twenty-eight of 555 participants indicated that they had received orthodontic treatment. Most indicated they were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their teeth, both at the end of treatment (96%) and currently (84%). There was a strong relationship between the perception of stability of tooth position and current satisfaction level (P < .0001). Most individuals (88%) indicated that they themselves were responsible for maintaining the alignment and fit of their teeth. Those who indicated that someone else was responsible were nearly twice as likely to be dissatisfied with their teeth (P  =  .0496). Patients who had been prescribed clear, invisible retainers were significantly more likely to be “very satisfied” currently (50%) compared to those with Hawley (35%) or permanently bonded (36%) retainers (P  =  .0002). Patients with Hawley retainers were significantly less likely to be wearing them currently as prescribed (45%) than those with invisible (65%) or bonded (68%) retainers (P < .0001).Conclusions:Satisfaction with orthodontic results after treatment is related to patient perceptions of responsibility for retention and perceived stability of tooth position. Patients should play a contributory role in formulating orthodontic retention plans.     

Dentoskeletal changes following mini-implant molar intrusion in anterior open bite patients

Objective:To evaluate skeletal and dental changes after intrusion of the maxillary molars in subjects with anterior open bite.Materials and Methods:This retrospective cephalometric study evaluated skeletal and dental changes resulting from the use of maxillary orthodontic mini-implants in 31 consecutively treated patients. Radiographs were taken at the start and end of maxillary molar intrusion to evaluate the associated changes. Statistical analysis was performed using a one-sample t-test.Results:The mean treatment observation time was 1.31 years (SD  =  2.03). The maxillary first molars (P  =  0.0026) and second molars (P  =  0.039) were intruded. However, the mandibular first molars (P  =  0.0004) and second molars (P  =  0.003) erupted in adolescent patients. Both the maxillary and mandibular first molars inclined distally (P  =  0.025 and P  =  0.044, respectively). The mandibular plane angle decreased (P  =  0.036), lower facial height decreased (P  =  0.002), and the occlusal plane angle increased (P  =  0.009). The overbite increased (P < .0001). The ANB angle decreased (P < .0001). Mandibular dental and skeletal changes were more apparent in adolescents, while adults tended toward maxillary changes.Conclusions:Vertical traction from orthodontic mini-implants reduces the maxillary posterior dentoalveolar height, thereby assisting orthodontic closure of anterior open bite. However, simultaneous eruption or extrusion of the mandibular molars should be controlled. Adolescent patients tend to demonstrate more favorable effects of mandibular autorotation than do adults.     

Assessment of pharyngeal airway volume in adolescent patients affected by bilateral cleft lip and palate using cone beam computed tomography

Objective:To test the null hypothesis that there were no significant differences for pharyngeal airway volumes between the adolescent patients affected by bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) and well-matched controls using cone beam computed tomography.Materials and Methods:The study sample consisted of 16 patients (11 female and 5 male; mean [SD] age 14.1 [2.1] years) affected by BCLP and 16 patients (10 female and 6 male; mean [SD] age 13.4 [2.0] years) as age- and sex-matched control group. Craniofacial measurements and pharyngeal airway dimension, area, and volume measurements of patients in both groups were calculated and statistically examined using Student''s t-test and multiple linear regression analyses.Results:Statistically significant differences were found between the BCLP and control groups for SNB (P < .05), SN-GoGn (P < .05), Co-A (P < .05), PAS (P < .01), minAx (P < .01), and oropharyngeal airway volume (P < .05). The most predictive variables for oropharyngeal airway volume were found as PAS (r  =  .655 and P  =  .000) and minAx (r  =  .787 and P  =  .000).Conclusions:The null hypothesis was rejected. Oropharyngeal (P < .05) and total (P > .05) airway volumes were found to be less in the BCLP group, and thus the treatment choice in these patients should have positive effects on the pharyngeal airway.     

Effect of time and pH on physical-chemical properties of orthodontic brackets and wires

Objective:To test the hypothesis that treatment time, debris/biofilm, and oral pH have an influence on the physical-chemical properties of orthodontic brackets and arch wires.Materials and Methods:One hundred twenty metal brackets were evaluated. They were divided into four groups (n  =  30) according to treatment time: group C (control) and groups T12, T24, and T36 (brackets recovered after 12, 24, and 36 months of treatment, respectively). Rectangular stainless-steel arch wires that remained in the oral cavity for 12 to 24 months were also analyzed. Dimensional stability, surface morphology, composition of brackets, resistance to sliding of the bracket-wire set, surface roughness of wires, and oral pH were analyzed. One-way analysis of variance, followed by a Tukey multiple comparisons test, was used for statistical analysis (P < .05).Results:Carbon and oxygen were shown to be elements that increased expressively and in direct proportion to time, and there was a progressive increase in the coefficient of friction and roughness of wires as a function of time of clinical use after 36 months. Oral pH showed a significant difference between group T36 and its control (P  =  .014).Conclusions:The hypothesis was partially accepted: treatment time and biofilm and debris accumulation in bracket slots were shown to have more influence on the degradation process and frictional force of these devices than did oral pH.     

Adhesive performance of precoated brackets after expiration

Objective:To evaluate adhesive performance in terms of debonding forces of precoated metal and ceramic brackets 4 years after expiration.Materials and Methods:Buccal and lingual surfaces of embedded extracted maxillary premolars were etched with 34% Tooth Conditioner Gel (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del), rinsed, and dried. Transbond MIP (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) was applied prior to placing adhesive precoated brackets (APC II Victory stainless steel and APC Plus Clarity ceramic brackets, 3M Unitek). The preexpiration brackets had 29–35 months before, and the postexpiration brackets were 45–52 months past, their expiration dates. Sample size was 17–21 per group. Debonding forces were determined by subjecting the bonded brackets to a shear force in a universal testing machine. Debonding forces were compared using two-way ANOVA. Debonded surfaces were examined under a stereomicroscope to determine failure modes, which were compared using the chi-square test.Results:No statistically significant difference was found in debonding forces (P  =  .8581) or failure modes (P  =  .4538) between expired and unexpired brackets. Metal brackets required statistically significantly higher debonding forces than did ceramic brackets (P  =  .0001). For both expired and unexpired brackets, failure modes were mostly cohesive in the adhesive layer for ceramic brackets, and mixed between adhesive and cohesive failure in the adhesive layer for metal brackets.Conclusions:Adhesive precoated brackets did not have any reduction in enamel-adhesion properties up to 4 years after their expiration date. Extended shelf life testing for precoated dental brackets may be worth considering.     

Factors affecting orthodontists' management of the retention phase

Objective: To test the null hypothesis that orthodontist characteristics and factors related to retainer choice do not influence the management of the retention phase with regard to frequency and duration of follow-up care provided.Materials and Methods:Orthodontists (n  =  1000) were randomly selected to participate in an online survey divided into three categories: background, retainer choice, and time management.Results:Of the 1000 selected participants, 894 responded. When deciding the type of retainer to use, the following were considered most frequently: pretreatment malocclusion (91%), patient compliance (87%), patient oral hygiene (84%), and patients'' desires (81%). Orthodontists who considered the presence of third molars (P  =  .03) or “special needs” patients (P  =  .02) had significantly more follow-up visits than those who did not. When vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) were prescribed, there were significantly fewer visits (P  =  .02) compared to when other types of retainers were used. As practitioner experience increased, so did the number of visits (P < .0001). Orthodontists who considered the primary responsibility of retention to fall on the patient had significantly fewer follow-up visits (P < .0001) than those who considered it either a joint or orthodontist-only responsibility.Conclusions:The null hypothesis was rejected because the number of follow-up visits during the retention phase was affected by practitioner experience, whether VFRs were used, whether the orthodontist considered the presence of third molars or special-needs patients when choosing the type of retainer, and to whom the orthodontist attributed responsibility during the retention phase.