No abstract

No abstract

Background and objectives: Although the main objective of any orthodontic treatment is to correct malocclusion, a range of psychosocial and/or esthetic factors drive patients to undergo orthodontic treatment. The aim of the present study was to analyze variations in oral health-related quality of life (OHRQL) levels in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment by means of four types of appliances: fixed buccal metal brackets, fixed buccal esthetic/ceramic brackets, fixed lingual brackets, and clear aligners. Material and Methods: The study sample comprised 120 patients aged 18 to 68 years who attended the Orthodontic department at the Dental Clinic of the University of Valencia. The Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) was used to measure orthodontic treatment need. Each patient completed three different intervals of the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14): before treatment (T0); six months after placing the orthodontic appliances (T1) and at the end of orthodontic treatment (T2). Results: All groups suffered a reduction in quality of life from T0 to T1 except the metal bracket group which presented the same level for the functional limitation domain (p = 1.000), the lingual bracket group for the psychological discomfort domain (p = 1.000) and clear aligner group for the physical disability domain (p = 0.118) and psychological disability domain (p = 1.000). Nevertheless, quality of life for most domains was similar in all groups at the end of treatment (T2). Conclusions: Patients underwent a significant reduction in quality of life during treatment in comparison with their pre-treatment condition but showed significant improvements at the end of treatment.

Background The exponential increase in implant placement worldwide and the high prevalence of its associated pathologies have prompted an increasing contribution by the scientific community to the number of publications related to peri‐implant pathologies. Purpose The objective of this work is to carry out a bibliometric analysis of scientific production on peri‐implant diseases. Materials and Methods The search strategy included titles, keywords, and abstracts based on the term peri‐implantitis and all the possible combinations existing in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) of the main collection of Web of Science. Two limits were established: the document typology was limited to Article and Review, and articles published up to 2019 were selected. All articles were refined and standardized manually to avoid typographical errors and duplications in authors' names or institutions. Results The total number of papers collected was 2547. A significant increase was observed in the number of articles published, especially in the past 10 years. The three most productive authors were Europeans, and the 45 most productive institutions were the universities. The most productive funding entities were the governments. Of the published works, 42.28% were funded. Of the 2547 records, 86.53% presented keywords. Conclusions Scientific literature on peri‐implantitis shows scientific growth in recent years, with a growing trend towards collaboration between authors and institutions. Most of the works have been published in high‐impact journals, and in the last 2 years, more than half of the works have received some type of public or private funding.

Background Due to the lack of bibliometric studies in the field of lingual orthodontics in dentistry, the aim of this study was to assess the evolution and current status of activity in this field during the period 1978–2017. Methods A bibliometric analysis of the scientific articles indexed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded of the Web of Science and in the Scopus® database was performed using the truncated terms “ling* apppli*” or “ling* orthod*” or “ling* bracket*”. The types of texts included for analysis were limited to “articles” and “reviews”. The following information was extracted from each article identified: title, authors’ name(s), institutional affiliation(s), country of origin, journal title, year of publication, type of publication, and number of citations. Results A total of 341 articles were identified by 646 different authors, 6.2% were reviews and 93.8% were other types of journal articles. Bibliometric indicators showed a tremendous increase in the rate of publication over time with two peaks in productivity in 1989 and 2013. Fourteen authors and 15 institutional collaboration networks were identified in which European institutions were the most productive. Methodological articles were the most frequent types of research articles (28.1%), followed by case reports/series (17.1%), and narrative reviews (4.7%). Articles providing the highest quality evidence were interventional clinical trials (1.8%) and systematic reviews (0.9%). The remaining articles were non-research papers and were for information purposes only. Conclusions Bibliometric indicators point to an irregular increase in the numbers of published works in lingual orthodontics over time. Research output is dominated by methodological articles as a technique-driven subspecialty. Although articles on lingual orthodontics are published mainly in North American journals, lingual orthodontics is largely a European domain.