Aim To assess the beneficial and adverse effects on the dental and periodontal issues of periodontal–orthodontic treatment of teeth with pathological tooth flaring, drifting, and elongation in patients with severe periodontitis. Materials and methods Nine databases were searched in April 2020 for randomized/non‐randomized clinical studies. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk‐of‐bias assessment, random‐effect meta‐analyses of mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by subgroup/meta‐regression analyses. Results A total of 30 randomized and non‐randomized clinical studies including 914 patients (29.7% male; mean age 43.4 years) were identified. Orthodontic treatment of pathologically migrated teeth was associated with clinical attachment gain (−0.24 mm; seven studies), pocket probing depth reduction (−0.23 mm; seven studies), marginal bone gain (−0.36 mm; seven studies), and papilla height gain (−1.42 mm; two studies) without considerable adverse effects, while patient sex, gingival phenotype, baseline disease severity, interval between periodontal and orthodontic treatment, and orthodontic treatment duration affected the results. Greater marginal bone level gains were seen by additional circumferential fiberotomy (two studies; MD = –0.98 mm; 95% CI = –1.87 to −0.10 mm; p = .03), but the quality of evidence was low. Conclusions Limited evidence of poor quality indicates that orthodontic treatment might be associated with small improvements of periodontal parameters, which do not seem to affect prognosis, but more research is needed.

Summary Background Social media are one of the most common and easily accessible ways of gaining information about orthodontic treatment. Objective The main objective of this study was to systematically search the literature and determine the various aspects of the interrelationship between social media and orthodontics from the patient’s perspective. Search methods Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The reference lists of all eligible articles were hand-searched for additional studies. Selection criteria Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies were included. Data collection and analysis Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed individually and in duplicate by the first two authors. Results One RCT, three retrospective, and four cross-sectional studies were deemed as eligible for inclusion in this review. The studies included patient’s statements in social media or results from questionnaires given to patients. The social media reported were with order of frequency: Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Google+, Pinterest, and Instagram. The feelings the patients expressed seemed to be more positive than negative: enthusiasm, self-esteem and pleasure, excitement about the aesthetic result, excitement after braces removal but also antipathy, annoyances, reduced self-esteem, and impatience for removing mechanisms. In addition, one study referred to bullying through Twitter. Limitations The high amount of heterogeneity precluded a valid interpretation of the results through pooled estimates. Conclusions and implications This systematic review demonstrated that information about orthodontics, how the patient feels, and other psychosocial facets are spread through social media. It is intuitive that research relating to the effects and impact of orthodontic interventions should account not only for the physical impacts of treatment but also to encompass patient-centered outcomes. Registration The protocol of this study was not registered in publicly assessable database. Conflicts of interest None to declare.

Both palatal implants and mini-screws have quite low failure rates that are also comparable, though the median follow-up period of palatal implants was quite larger. Therefore, in regular orthodontic cases, the choice between anchoring devices may rely on other factors, such as costs, patient comfort, personal preferences, familiarity with the device, and insertion procedures.

No abstract

Background Quantitative and qualitative analysis of several periodontal parameters plays an important role in several dental procedures. Aim of the current study was to assess gingival thickness (GT) at mandibular incisors of orthodontic patients with two methods and determine how these methods are compared to each other when assessing periodontal anatomy through soft tissue thickness.Methods The sample consisted of 40 consecutive adult orthodontic patients. GT was measured at both central mandibular incisors, mid-facially on the buccal aspect, 2mm apically to the free gingival margin with two methods: a) clinically with an Ultrasound device (USD) and b) radiographically with Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).Results CBCT measurements were consistently higher than USD measurements, with the difference ranging from 0.13 mm to 0.21 mm. No difference was noted between the repeated CBCT measurements at the right central incisor (Bias= 0.05 mm; 95% CI= -0.01, 0.11, p=0.104). Although the respective results for the left incisor indicated, statistically, that the measurements were not exactly replicated, the magnitude of the point estimate was small and not clinically significant (Bias= 0.06 mm; 95% CI= 0.01, 0.11, p=0.014). Small differences between CBCT measurements made by the 2 examiners at the left central incisor (bias= 0.06 mm, 95% CI= 0.01, 0.11, p=0.014) were detected. However, this difference was minor, and again, not clinically significant. The respective analysis on the right incisor showed no significant difference (bias= 0.05 mm, 95% CI= -0.01, 0.11, p=0.246).Conclusions Present data indicate that CBCT measurements were highly reproducible and yielded greater values compared to USD measurements.