Background: The use of digital technology has exponentially increased over recent years. Intraoral scanners, especially, have gained traction within orthodontics. The objective of the present review is to investigate the available evidence to create an up-to-date presentation of various clinical aspects of intraoral scanners in orthodontics. Methods: Search without restrictions in seven databases (Pubmed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, Proquest) since inception, and hand searching until October 2020, were conducted. Results: The majority of studies were either cross-over or parallel group studies. The accuracy and reproducibility of intraoral scanners, in comparison to conventional methods, were investigated in several studies, with controversial results. The duration of the procedure did not report any clear outcome in favor of any method. Patients seem to prefer intraoral scanning, even though numerous studies point out the importance of operators’ experience and skills. Conclusions: Despite the innovations that intraoral scanners have brought in orthodontic clinical practice, there are still some challenges and limitations in their use. The majority of existing limitations may be overcome with experience and good clinical skills. More high-quality studies need to be conducted so that clinicians can have a clear image of this new technology.

Summary Background Intraoral scanners have become an increasingly popular alternative to conventional impression methods. Although their accuracy and validity have been examined thoroughly, patient-reported information including experiences, preferences, and satisfaction has not yet been investigated in a systematic way. Objective The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the available data and appraise the evidence on patient-reported experiences and preferences following impression taking with intraoral scanners. Search methods Unrestricted search of seven databases (Pubmed, CENTRAL, Cochrane reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, and ProQuest) and grey literature were conducted until October 2020. Detailed search strategies were developed for each database. Selection criteria Studies involving individuals of any gender or age, subjected to full arch impression taking with conventional and intraoral scanning methods were eligible for inclusion. Data collection and analysis Following the retrieval and selection of the studies, data extraction was performed. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. Results From the initially identified records, nine studies [eight crossover (two of them randomized) and one parallel group] were eventually included in the present systematic review. Randomized studies were shown, overall, to have some concerns regarding bias, whereas the non-randomized studies were found to be at serious risk, mainly because of bias due to confounding. All studies demonstrated some benefit in favour of intraoral scanning compared with conventional techniques. More positive feelings were generally observed with the intraoral scanners regarding smell, taste, sound, vibration, nausea, and queasiness. Overall, comfort assessment mostly favoured digital methods. No differences were found concerning the level of anxiety between the two methods. Among the included studies, time perception was a parameter leading to contradictory results. Limitations These emerge due to the nature and characteristics of the information retrieved from the included studies. The validation of the instruments to capture patient-reported outcomes needs to be further elaborated. Conclusions Intraoral scanners seem to be a promising new asset in the orthodontic office from the perspective of individuals’ experiences and preferences. Nevertheless, to investigate patient-reported outcomes correctly, further high-quality studies are required in the future. Registration Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ayug2/)

No abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to analyze the frequency of impaction of permanent teeth, beyond the third molars, and to highlight the factors causing this condition. Methods: Panoramic radiographs of 1400 patients that sought orthodontic treatment in private practice were retrieved and examined. All teeth that had not been erupted at the time of the examination while their root formation was completed were considered impacted. Results: In total, 212 out of 1400 patients had at least one impacted tooth (15.14%). The highest incidence of tooth impaction was in the canines of the maxilla, followed by the central incisors of the maxilla, the second molars of the mandible and the second premolars of the mandible. The most common etiological factors responsible for the impaction were the ectopic eruption pathway, loss of space in the arch, the ankylosis of the deciduous teeth and the presence of supernumerary teeth. Conclusions: Tooth impaction is frequently seen in everyday orthodontic practice. The upper canines are the teeth most frequently associated with impaction and failure of eruption. It is important to diagnose cases of impaction early on and identify the etiological factors in order to achieve immediate and effective treatment per patient.

Background: Biotechnology shows a promising future in bridging the gap between biomedical basic sciences and clinical craniofacial practice. The purpose of the present review is to investigate the applications of biotechnology in the craniofacial complex. Methods: This critical review was conducted by using the following keywords in the search strategy: “biotechnology”, “bioengineering”, “craniofacial”, “stem cells”, “scaffolds”, “biomarkers”, and ”tissue regeneration”. The databases used for the electronic search were the Cochrane Library, Medline (PubMed), and Scopus. The search was conducted for studies published before June 2022. Results: The applications of biotechnology are numerous and provide clinicians with the great benefit of understanding the etiology of dentofacial deformities, as well as treating the defected areas. Research has been focused on craniofacial tissue regeneration with the use of stem cells and scaffolds, as well as in bioinformatics with the investigation of growth factors and biomarkers capable of providing evidence for craniofacial growth and development. This review presents the biotechnological opportunities in the fields related to the craniofacial complex and attempts to answer a series of questions that may be of interest to the reader. Conclusions: Biotechnology seems to offer a bright future ahead, improving and modernizing the clinical management of cranio-dento-facial diseases. Extensive research is needed as human studies on this subject are few and have controversial results.