Significant relationships exist between bullying and certain occlusal traits, self-esteem and OHRQoL.

The aim of this follow-up study was to measure the self-reported frequency and severity of bullying in orthodontic patients previously identified as being bullied, who have commenced interceptive orthodontic treatment, and to investigate the effect on an individual's self-esteem and oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Forty-three adolescents previously identified as being bullied due to the presence of a malocclusion were invited to take part in a follow-up study following commencement of orthodontic treatment at three UK Hospitals. Validated questionnaires were used to assess the self-reported frequency and severity of bullying, self-esteem and OHRQoL. The participation rate at follow-up was 63 per cent. Following commencement of orthodontic treatment, 21 (78 per cent) participants reported they were currently no longer being bullied due to the presence of their malocclusion. In comparison to their pre-treatment scores, participants reported fewer functional limitations (P = 0.013), decreased emotional (P < 0.001) and social impact (P < 0.001), and improved overall oral health (P = 0.03) and OHRQoL (P = 0.002). In addition, an improvement in functional limitations (P = 0.021), emotional (P = 0.008), social impact (P = 0.008) and OHRQoL (P = 0.02) was reported by participants who were no longer being bullied in comparison to those who continued to report bullying. There appears to be no effect on an individual's self-esteem. Orthodontic treatment may have a positive effect on adolescents experiencing bullying related to their malocclusion and their OHRQoL.

No abstract

The aims of this study were to assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) using AMSTAR and to compare the prevalence of meta-analysis in both review types. A literature search was undertaken to identify SRs that consisted of hand-searching five major orthodontic journals [American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (February 2002 to July 2011)] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2000 to July 2011. Methodological quality of the included reviews was gauged using the AMSTAR tool involving 11 key methodological criteria with a score of 0 or 1 given for each criterion. A cumulative grade was given for the paper overall (0-11); an overall score of 4 or less represented poor methodological quality, 5-8 was considered fair and 9 or greater was deemed to be good. In total, 109 SRs were identified in the five major journals and on the CDSR. Of these, 26 (23.9%) were in the CDSR. The mean overall AMSTAR score was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria; a similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the CDSR (P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis (β = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTAR.

No abstract