Objectives: To assess if there is any difference in pain levels between orthodontic treatment with clear aligners or fixed appliances. Materials and methods: An electronic search was completed in PubMed, The Cochrane Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials, and OpenGrey databases without any restrictions until February 2019. All comparative study types contrasting pain levels between clear aligners and fixed appliances were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, ROBINS-I-Tool, or ROB 2.0 according to the study design. The level of evidence was assessed through the GRADE tool. Results: After removal of duplicates, exclusion by title and abstract, and reading the full text, only seven articles were included. Five were prospective non-randomized clinical trials (CCT), one was a cross-sectional study, and one was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Two studies presented a high RoB, three a moderate RoB, and two a low RoB (including the RCT). A meta-analysis was not performed because of clinical, statistical, and methodological heterogeneity. Most of the studies found that pain levels in patients treated with Invisalign were lower than those treated with conventional fixed appliances during the first days of treatment. Differences disappeared thereafter. No evidence was identified for other brands of clear aligners. Conclusions: Based on a moderate level of certainty, orthodontic patients treated with Invisalign appear to feel lower levels of pain than those treated with fixed appliances during the first few days of treatment. Thereafter (up to 3 months), differences were not noted. Malocclusion complexity level among included studies was mild. Pain is one of many considerations and predictability and technical outcome are more important, mainly considering that the difference does not seem to occur after the first months of the orthodontic treatment.

No abstract

Objectives To investigate whether there was a difference in success rates when stainless steel (SS) was compared to titanium mini-implants (MIs) in orthodontic patients. Materials and Methods PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials, and OpenGray were searched without restrictions. A manual search was also performed in the references of the included articles. Studies comparing the success rate between SS and titanium MIs were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions) Tool or RoB 2.0 according to the study design. The level of evidence was assessed through GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Results Six studies met the eligibility criteria. One study was a randomized clinical trial that evaluated extraalveolar MIs, and nonrandomized trials examined interradicular MIs. The RCT presented a low RoB, two nonrandomized trials presented a moderate risk, and three presented a high risk. The quality of the evidence was high for the randomized clinical trial and moderate for the nonrandomized trials. Most studies found no difference between materials, with good success rates for both (SS, 74.6%–100%; titanium: 80.9%–100%) and only one study, with a high RoB, showed a higher success rate with titanium MIs (90%) when compared with SS (50%). A quantitative analysis was not because of the great heterogeneity among the studies. Conclusions Although limited, the current evidence seems to show that the material used is not a major factor in the success rate of MIs. Because it has a lower cost than titanium and presents similar clinical efficiency, SS is a great material for orthodontic MIs.

Background This study aims to evaluate the impact of the loss of permanent molars on the duration of orthodontic treatment for space closure and without skeletal anchorage. Methods Records at the beginning (T0) and the end (T1) of orthodontic treatment were selected retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups: loss of molar (n = 19) and control, without loss (n = 24). The impact of loss on treatment time was assessed using multiple linear regression adjusted for the number of absences, bonding failures, age, sex, PAR index at T0 and T1 at p<0.05. Treatment time was also evaluated by the number of losses and which arches were involved (upper, lower). The systematic and random errors for the PAR index were verified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Dahlberg formula, respectively. Results A small random error (1.51) and excellent replicability (ICC = 99.6) were observed. Overall average treatment time was 22.5 months (± 7.95) for the group without loss and 44.7 months (± 17.3) with a loss. Treatment time was longer in cases where there was a higher number of missing molars and when both arches were involved. In addition to the loss (β = 4.25, p < 0.001), the number of missed appointments (β = 2.88, p < 0.001) had a significant effect and increased treatment time. Bonding failures, gender, age, and PAR index at T0 and T1 were not significantly associated with treatment time in the multivariate model (p > 0.05). Conclusion Loss of the first permanent molar has a negative impact on orthodontic treatment time in cases of space closure. The treatment time is longer when there are more tooth losses and arches involved. Treatment time also increases with greater numbers of missed clinical appointments.

Objectives To evaluate whether the quality of orthodontic finishing influences long-term stability of anterior tooth alignment. Materials and Methods This retrospective study evaluated 38 patients. Data were obtained at the beginning of treatment (T0), at the end (T1), and at least 5 years after T1 (T2). At this point, the individuals were no longer wearing retainers. Anterior tooth alignment was measured using Little's index (LI). Effect on alignment stability was tested with multiple linear regression using LI–T0, LI–T1, intercanine width difference T1–T0, overbite (T1), overjet (T1), age, gender, time without retention, and presence of third molars as predictor variables. Well-aligned (LI &lt; 1.5 mm) and misaligned (LI &gt; 1.5 mm) cases were compared at T2. Results At T2, the alignment stability in the upper arch was inversely associated with the alignment quality (R2 = 0.378, P &lt; .001) and directly associated with overbite (R2 = 0.113, P = .008) at T1. Posttreatment changes caused cases finished with poor alignment to become similar to those finished with excellent alignment (P = .917). In the mandible, posttreatment changes were directly associated only with overjet (R2 = 0.152, P = .015) and well-finished cases displayed better alignment than poorly finished cases (P = .011). Other variables showed no significant association. Conclusions In arches without retention, better quality of orthodontic finishing does not guarantee the stability of anterior alignment. In the maxilla, long-term changes were more significant the greater the overbite and the better the quality of alignment at end of treatment. In the mandible, changes were not dependent on the quality of finishing but were associated with greater overbite at T2.