BackgroundThe treatment options for the early treatment of anterior open bite are still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the actual available evidence on treatments of anterior open bite in the mixed dentition in order to assess the effectiveness of the early treatment in reducing open bite, the most efficacious treatment strategy and the stability of the results.Materials and methodsA literature survey was done on November 15, 2015, by means of appropriate Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, VHL, and WEB OF SCIENCE.Randomized clinical trials and studies with a control group (treated or untreated) were then selected by two authors. Trials including patients with syndromes or in the permanent dentition and studies concerning treatment with extractions, full-fixed appliances, or surgery were not considered.Full articles were retrieved for abstracts or titles that met the initial inclusion criteria or lacked sufficient detail for immediate exclusion.ResultsTwo thousand five hundred sixty-nine studies about open bite were available; the search strategy selected 240 of them.Twenty-four articles have been judged suitably for the final review, and their relevant data were analyzed.DiscussionAlthough this review confirms the effectiveness of early treatment of open bite, particularly when no-compliance strategies are employed, meta-analysis was unfeasible due to lack of standardization, important methodological limitations, and shortcomings of the studies.ConclusionsA more robust approach to trial design in terms of methodology and error analysis is needed. Besides, more studies with longer periods of follow-up are required.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that bonding with a blue light-emitting diode (LED) curing unit produces no more failures in adhesive-precoated (APC) orthodontic brackets than bonding carried out by a conventional halogen lamp. Materials and Methods: Sixty-five patients were selected for this randomized clinical trial, in which a total of 1152 stainless steel APC brackets were employed. In order to carry out a valid comparison of the bracket failure rate following use of each type of curing unit, each patient's mouth was divided into four quadrants. In 34 of the randomly selected patients, designated group A, the APC brackets of the right maxillary and left mandibular quadrants were bonded using a halogen light, while the remaining quadrants were treated with an LED curing unit. In the other 31 patients, designated group B, halogen light was used to cure the left maxillary and right mandibular quadrants, whereas the APC brackets in the remaining quadrants were bonded using an LED dental curing light. The bonding date, the type of light used for curing, and the date of any bracket failures over a mean period of 8.9 months were recorded for each bracket and, subsequently, the chi-square test, the Yates-corrected chi-square test, the Fisher exact test, KaplanMeier survival estimates, and the log-rank test were employed in statistical analyses of the results. Results: No statistically significant difference in bond failure rate was found between APC brackets bonded with the halogen light-curing unit and those cured with LED light. However, significantly fewer bonding failures were noted in the maxillary arch (1.67%) than in the mandibular arch (4.35%) after each light-curing technique. Conclusions: The hypothesis cannot be rejected since use of an LED curing unit produces similar APC bracket failure rates to use of conventional halogen light, with the advantage of a far shorter curing time (10 seconds).

Maxillary molar distalization therapy can be successfully performed in adult patients despite a slight increase in vertical facial dimension should be considered.

No abstract

No abstract