Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
World Journal of Orthodontics
WJO Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: ORTHODONTICS
ORTHODONTICS
The Art and Practice of Dentofacial Enhancement

Formerly World Journal of Orthodontics

Edited by
Rafi Romano, DMD, MSc (Editor-in-Chief)

ISSN 2160-2999 (print) / ISSN 2160-3006 (online)

Visit the ORTHODONTICS: The Art and Practice of Dentofacial Enhancement Facebook page

Publication:
Summer 2008
Volume 9 , Issue 2

Back
Share Abstract:

Editorial: Best Evidence in Orthodontics


PMID: 18575302

A large volume of literature has accumulated in dentistry over the last 30 years, making it difficult for general practitioners to follow, much less assimilate, the results of the various studies into their everyday practices. The evidence-based dentistry process—following that of evidence-based medicine—employs a systematic approach to review the literature and extract the scientific evidence applicable to specific clinical questions. Thus, evidence-based dentistry aids clinicians in providing the best care to their patients by bridging the gap between research and dental practice. Nevertheless, where is this best evidence coming from? According to the ADA, best evidence is a term that refers to information obtained from randomized controlled clinical trials, nonrandomized controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, crossover studies, cross-sectional studies, case studies, or, in the absence of scientific evidence, the consensus opinion of experts in the appropriate fields of research or clinical practice. The strength of the evidence follows the order of the studies or opinions listed above.

Does this hold true for orthodontics, as well? Although it is well-documented that data derived from randomized controlled clinical trials or systematic reviews in orthodontics are of great value in decision-making and the provision of health care, there are inherent problems associated with them. These problems are discussed in this issue’s “Frontiers in Clinical Research” article written by Donald J. Rinchuse, Daniel J. Rinchuse, Sanjivan Kandasamy, and Marc B. Ackerman from the University of Pittsburgh, University of Western Australia, and Jacksonville University School of Orthodontics. In their excellent review, the authors suggest that “orthodontic practitioners and journal editors alike should not erroneously accept as ‘holy writ’ the conclusions of all systematic reviews.” The authors point out and discuss “the shortcomings of systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses in full awareness and appreciation of the benefits of such reviews.” This article comes at a time when more “voices”1,2 appear in orthodontic literature, posing critical evaluation of the evidence coming from even prospective randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Editors of orthodontic journals especially should see the “scientific evidence” derived from systematic reviews and meta-analyses more cautiously, as an unacceptably high number of systematic reviews related to orthodontics published between January 1, 2000, and January 31, 2007, were found to be “inconclusive, reflecting methodological inadequacies of the review process and exposing inadequacies in our evidence base.”3,4 I am sure that more articles discussing the issue of the validity of the “evidence” originating from systematic reviews in orthodontics will surface in the future. A controlled trial on soft profile changes during orthodontic treatment with a banded Herbst appliance compared to a control group appears in this issue (Almeida et al, pages 121–131; see also below).

Further on the articles in this issue: In a 2-part article, Drs Chung, Kim, Kook, Choo, and Son from South Korea report on the effectiveness of the osseointegration-based mini-implant (C-Implant) in managing anterior torque control during en masse retraction of anterior dentition by employing the biocreative therapy type I and type II.

Drs Tibana, Palagi, Carneiro, Almeida, and Miguel from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, evaluate the cephalometric changes in the facial profile of young adults in a longitudinal study, suggesting that facial profile alters throughout the third decade of life for both sexes, with more pronounced changes in nose depth.

Drs Almeida, Flores-Mir, Brandão, Almeida, and Almeida-Pedrin, from the University of São Paulo, Brazil, and the University of Alberta, Canada, in a prospective controlled trial, conclude that although the changes in the soft tissue profile produced by a banded-type Herbst appliance were statistically different from the control group, they were not clinically significant.

A smile is a powerful tool for the face. The study results of Drs Gul-e-Erum and Fida, coming from Pakistan, point out the responsibility of orthodontists to provide a systematic evaluation of smile attractiveness in order to better rehabilitate our patients’ smiles.

When the effects on the shear bond strength of Pro Seal light-cure varnish applied to the enamel surface before or after the application of sealant were compared, Drs El-Bokle and Munir, from Cairo University, Egypt, found no effect on the mean shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets for either way of application.

The vertical position of the maxillary lateral incisors seems to greatly influence the smile and the best perceived position is when they are slightly offset from the incisal plane, as Drs King, Evans, Viana, BeGole, and Obrez, from the University of Illinois at Chicago, report.

This issue’s case report describes the treatment of an adult female with a severe Class II malocclusion and congenitally missing mandibular incisors. Drs Nagaraj, Upadhyay, and Yadav, from KLE University, India, and Indiana University–Purdue University, USA, decided to extract the maxillary first premolars and use mini- implants for en masse retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth. Mini-implants proved to be an effective alternative to orthognathic surgery for this patient.

The online articles for this issue include “Response of maxillary retrusion cases to face mask treatment” by Dr Ramadan of the Suez Canal University, Egypt; “Combined orthodontic-orthopedic approach: A second choice in some surgical cases” by Dr Dahan from the University of Louvain, Belgium; and “Comparison of white spot lesion formation between a self-ligating bracket and a conventional preadjusted straight wire bracket” by Drs Polat, Gökçelik, Arman, and Auhun of Baskent University, Turkey.

Efthimia K. Basdra, DDS, PhD
Editor

References
1. Meikle MC. What do prospective randomized clinical trials tell us about the treatment of class II malocclusions? A personal viewpoint. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:105–114.

2. Darendeliler MA. Validity of randomized clinical trials in evaluating the outcomes of class II treatment. Semin Orthod 2006;12:67–79.

3. Flores-Mir C, Major MP, Major PW. Search and selection methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2000-2004). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:214–217.

4. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT. Systematic reviews in orthodontics: What have we learned? Int Dent J. 2008;58:10–14.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files.
This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site
to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2022 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog