Digitally positioned brackets - are they any better?

In orthodontics, the current trend is to find ways to accelerate treatment with many appliances making these claims, even in the naming of their appliance or technique (Fast, Quick, Rapid, Speed, 6-month, etc.). There is substantial evidence now to demonstrate that simply changing to a different type of bracket makes no difference – it is the skill of the operator that is most important, otherwise the patient may be accepting a compromise. For example; if treating only in round wires then the roots are not rotated, tipped or especially torqued into their best and most stable positions or the occlusion or overjet not addressed.

To overcome this, some companies have suggested that digitally positioned brackets are the answer as they reduce variability and take into account a lot of the skill and variation of the operator. Systems such as Insignia, SureSmile and even Invisalign are examples of these in orthodontics. However, there is a lot of biological variation with individual patients varying in response as well as appliances do not deliver 100% of what is built into them which is why detailing/finishing is required (the fiddly part of orthodontics). Previous retrospective studies have suggested that digitally customised appliances did deliver faster treatment but these had the same flaws as the self-ligating bracket and vibration appliance studies in that there is a high risk of bias and potential confounding variables that can influence the result beyond just the appliance (the later RCTs found no difference). This is why blinded, RCT’s are considered the gold standard – but also take more time and cost to conduct. However, an RCT was just published online in the Journal of Dental Research (considered the top journal in dentistry in terms of the quality of the articles) and this paper looked at the Insignia system of digitally positioned brackets compared with conventional placement. The results were interesting!

There were 180 patients in this RCT and when completed, they analysed 85 patients in the customized group and 89 in the non-customized group. The authors found no difference in treatment duration (digital = 1.3 years vs. conventional = 1.2 years) or quality of outcome as measured by the PAR (Peer Assessment Rating) index. Most importantly, the Orthodontist did have a significant effect on treatment duration, quality of treatment outcome, and number of visits (P < 0.05) - not the appliance used. Interestingly, the customized orthodontic group also had more loose brackets, a longer planning time, and more complaints (P < 0.05).

In the rush (pardon the pun) for faster treatment and to seem to be on the cutting edge, we can leap into new technologies. Sometimes they deliver what they claim while at other times they do not. Such systems usually involve additional cost with an expectation by the patient of faster treatment but in this case, it wasn’t delivering what it claimed. Some practitioners may prefer these systems and that is a personal choice just as some prefer one bracket type over another, but when claims are made of a faster or better outcome (and often at added cost)… proof rather than opinion is required. As Carl Sagan (Astrophysicist) famously stated; ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’.

DOES THE ACCELEDENT AURA APPLIANCE SPEED UP THE INITIAL ALIGNMENT OF TEETH WITH BRACES?

This summary of my recent clinical trial published in the American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics demonstrated no effect of the AcceleDent Aura vibrational appliance during the initial alignment of teeth with fixed appliances.

PASSIVE SELF-LIGATING BRACKETS ARE BETTER - IT'S OBVIOUS?

This Blog topic was prompted by comments in Kevin O'Brien's excellent Blog regarding 'thinking about orthodontics'. Kevin was discussing evidence-based care and what we know versus what we don't know and how to apply our knowledge, skill and experience as clinicians in the treatment of our patients. Many suggestions were made about what we do and don't know but two comments in particular claimed that Passive Self-ligating (PSL) brackets were superior to conventional brackets during initial alignment in non-extraction treatment. I have also seen other claims in Facebook study clubs where the clinician states that in their experience, PSL brackets are superior for space closure in extraction cases (a future Blog topic). So is this evidence or their opinion and what is the evidence if any?

In 2006 I conducted the first prospective study comparing PSL brackets with conventional brackets in the lower arch in non-extraction cases. This was published in The Angle Orthodontist and I found that the PSL bracket was no better during initial alignment than a conventional bracket. Another non-extraction study published in the American Journal of Orthodontics in 2010 found there was no difference between PSL or Active SL brackets. Based upon this evidence in clinical trials this refutes the claim that PSL brackets are more effective in non-extraction cases during initial alignment. If we then include the evidence from extraction cases as well, this was summarised very nicely in another article in the American Journal of Orthodontics in 2014 where the data was plotted graphically (shown below) in a meta-analysis. The vertical line at zero ('0') represents no difference between brackets and the purple squares are the individual studies. What we are most interested in are the large green diamonds which represent the results combined together and as they overlap the zero line, this indicates there was no difference between any of the bracket types tested across the various studies during initial alignment. It seems the evidence is quite compelling that there is no advantage in PSL or ASL brackets over conventional brackets during initial alignment.

As the evidence clearly shows there is no difference between brackets, the choice of bracket then comes down to the personal preference of the clinician. BTW if you are interested in evidence-based orthodontics then I highly recommend subscribing to Kevin's Blog at http://kevinobrienorthoblog.com/

Dr Peter Miles is the orthodontist at Newwave Orthodontics in Caloundra, Australia and was a part-time lecturer at the University of Queensland for 11 years and is a visiting lecturer at Seton Hill University in the USA. Peter is one of the editors and authors of the orthodontic textbook, 'Evidence-Based Clinical Orthodontics'.

HIGHEST VIEWED BLOGS SO FAR!!

For this Blog I thought I would recap the 5 most popular Blogs I have published so far and it is interesting to note that they are all related to early #orthodontic treatment. Although some of these involve the same topic I will rank them in order of the most viewed individual Blogs. Note the text in a different colour is a link to the original Blog or document so just click on it if you wish to know more.

1) The most read and searched Blog and also one of the more recent was 'Maxillary Expansion - Unexpected Benefits?' in September this year. This Blog has interest for readers who are clinicians as well as the general public discussing #expansion and its possible effect upon bed-wetting, sleep #apnea and middle ear problems. Expansion is a common procedure in orthodontics but there is limited quality research on these specific areas. It is also an emerging topic with a lot of mis-information accessible on search-engines and deserves more well-designed research in the future.

2) On a similarly related topic was this Blog back in January 2015 titled 'Do Orthodontic Extractions Cause Sleep Apnea?'. Again it is a controversial and emerging subject with a lot of mis-information which is easy to disseminate when there is minimal research. I am glad these two topics have received such an enthusiastic response.

3 - 5) The next three topics all related to #Myofunctional appliances. In order these Blogs were 'More on Myofunctionals - 2 Clinical Trials' followed by the first of the Blogs on this topic, 'Myofunctional Appliances - What's the Evidence?'. The third and most recent of the Blogs on this topic was also the most recent Blog prior to this and reported the 'Results of a RCT of a Prefabricated Functional Appliance'. This is an area dominated on search engines by companies and clinicians extolling the virtues of these appliances and treatment approach. The higher levels of evidence come from clinical trials which are discussed in these Blogs and although these trials are not ideal they currently are the best level of evidence we have and come to a similar conclusion. Although they find statistical differences, these differences were quite small and indicated that these appliances were less effective than more conventional treatments for bite correction. Despite being in an evidence-based era where we would like to see well-conducted clinical trials upon which to base our treatments, there is limited quality research and both clinicians and the general public need to be wary of the claims being made until well designed research is available.

I would like to thank you the reader for your interest as my goal throughout is to provide quality information for clinicians and the general public on the more controversial topics in orthodontics. I would also like to point out that I have no financial interest in any appliance or technique I discuss in these Blogs so when gathering information, consider whether the source of information is potentially biased and associated with that particular appliance or technique.

Remember any of the Blogs can be found at http://newwaveorthodontics.blogspot.com.au/ and scrolling down and older ones can be accessed at the bottom of the page by clicking 'older posts'. Wishing all a happy, safe & prosperous 2016.

Dr Peter Miles is the orthodontist at Newwave Orthodontics in Caloundra, Australia and teaches orthodontics part-time at the University of Queensland and is a visiting lecturer at Seton Hill University in the USA. Peter is one of the editors and authors of the orthodontic textbook, 'Evidence-Based Clinical Orthodontics'.

VIBRATION & ACCELERATED ORTHODONTICS - CLAIMS VERSUS EVIDENCE

Claims of faster treatment with 'special' quick or fast braces or appliances such as AcceleDent, OrthoPulse and others are appearing more and more in the market place and on Google. The companies hope their product can shorten treatment and heavily advertise so - but what is the evidence?

When you are paying up to $1000 or even more for something you want to be sure or pretty sure it works... or not care about the $1000! Some clinicians and patients use the special brace or appliance and feel their treatment went faster and extol the virtues of the appliance while others do not see a difference, shrug their shoulders and move on. When we are told something is better/faster we look for that difference - some remember the ones that worked (the Believers) while others remember the ones that didn't (the Naysayers) and so we now have two camps, both with a biased perspective! This happened with self-ligating brackets where initially it was felt by some that they shortened treatment (and appeared in the media saying so) but later research revealed that in fact they were not (see my previous Blog on Braces claiming to be Fast)!

Currently some state that you can use #Invisalign clear aligners every week instead of every two weeks (as the manufacturers currently recommend) when using #vibration or other appliances. However many patients get away with weekly wear without these appliances anyway while others won't. There are current studies that suggest vibration accelerates tooth movement with braces while a better designed prospective trial finds no difference. I am currently running a randomized clinical trial on the vibration appliance, AcceleDent and the results of this will be available for publication later this year (2015) to further examine any effect of vibration during initial alignment and space closure so this will be discussed in a future Blog. Although the idea of vibration holds some merit, the evidence supporting it is currently of a lower quality while the higher level evidence from a prospective randomized trial finds no difference. More research is obviously required to clarify the debate and will be forthcoming over the next couple of years but it is the quality of the evidence that is important to answering this question.

Dr Peter Miles is the orthodontist at Newwave Orthodontics in Caloundra, Australia and teaches orthodontics part-time at the University of Queensland and is a visiting lecturer at Seton Hill University in the USA. Peter is one of the editors and authors of the orthodontic textbook, 'Evidence-Based Clinical Orthodontics'. Importantly, he has no financial interest in any products discussed in these Blogs.

WHAT AGE IS BEST FOR ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT TO ACHIEVE THE BEST JAW GROWTH?

Many orthodontic associations around the world recommend an orthodontic exam at age 7 but does this mean your child needs treatment then? There is much debate over what is the best time to treat protrusive upper teeth and/or a retrusive lower jaw (Class II bite like Bart). Some suggest waiting until adolescence (when all adult teeth have erupted), others earlier at age 9-10 with functional appliances such as Twin Blocks, Activators or Bionators, while others suggest even as early as age 5-6 with myofunctional appliances (covered in a previous Blog)!


The evidence supporting very early treatment with myofunctional appliances at age 5-10 is of low quality and that research demonstrates only small clinical changes of ~2mm which for most is not a significant change. Much higher level evidence from well-designed randomised clinical trials have demonstrated that you can treat much worse bites with protrusions of 7mm and more at ages 9-10 but also just as effectively during adolescence when all the adult teeth have erupted (~ages 13-14). The only advantages of treating earlier are in the form of improved self-esteem earlier than if treated later, and a modest reduction in trauma discussed in a previous Blog. Self-esteem can be an important issue for some and a valid reason to consider early treatment.

Some have suggested that you can predict the timing of treatment based upon x-ray markers of growth such as hand-wrist x-rays or more recently using cephalometric radiographs of the skull and identifying the developmental stages of the cervical spine (neck bones), called the CVM method. The CVM method was based upon work by Dr Don Lamparksi from the University of Pittsburgh where I trained and was later revised by others. The timing of peak growth varies widely from 8½-11½ in girls and 10-14 in boys. Research has demonstrated a low agreement in identifying the stages of  these spine markers and that it cannot predict the onset of peak mandibular growth. You would also likely need multiple radiographs to determine when you are actually approaching peak growth and by the time you see it you are already at the peak or past it. But let’s say you do achieve the perfect timing for treatment with an appliance such as a Herbst. In this study evaluating patients treated with a Herbst appliance the authors found that with ideal timing compared with a historical control they found 1.9mm advancement of the chin (Pogonion). Firstly a historical control from over 50 years ago does not allow a valid comparison as the amount and timing of peak growth has changed over the past 50 years. We will also overlook the stability issue in that functional appliance studies always show some early growth effect but that long term the growth slows so there is no difference between those children treated earlier and those treated in adolescence. So now let's compare it to a study using a Herbst in ‘non’-growing adults. They still found a 1.3mm advancement of the chin (Pogonion) so with ideal timing vs. non-growers there is only a 0.6mm advantage! You then have to ask yourself 'Does 0.6mm matter' and most would accept that this is not a clinically meaningful change. Now back to the issue of timing and efficiency - if the treatment time is a little shorter (as growth helps you out a bit more) at the ideal time, then you possibly (and this is unclear) save 2-3 months in overall treatment time compared to treating much earlier or much later This then comes down to whether you consider this potential time saving a big enough benefit to try to determine this most ideal time. However I would not consider it a critical issue.


So why age 7 for a screening exam? Most do not need treatment at this age but it is a good age to identify the small number that would benefit form an early intervention such as early loss of baby teeth that result in space loss, or crossbites of front teeth. Others could be left until age 9-10 e.g. to preserve space to reduce crowding or identify those developing impacting maxillary canine teeth (much easier to intervene at age 9-10 then try to treat a fully impacted canine at age 14-15), while the majority can quite happily wait until all adult teeth have erupted in early adolescence. However your orthodontist does not want to miss the small number that could greatly benefit from such early interventions so if you are unsure then seek a consultation with your orthodontist who can then inform you of the most appropriate treatment time as well as the pros and cons of any options.

Dr Peter Miles is the orthodontist at Newwave Orthodontics in Caloundra, Australia, editor and author of the textbook Evidence-Based Clinical Orthodontics, and teaches orthodontics part-time at the University of Queensland and is a visiting lecturer at Seton Hill University in the USA.

DO ORTHODONTIC EXTRACTIONS CAUSE SLEEP APNEA?

Sleep apnea (or #apnoea) is a serious condition resulting in excessive daytime sleepiness which can affect concentration and potentially increase accidents. It also increases the risk of high blood pressure, stroke and heart disease. More recently some proponents of myofunctional appliances (see previous Blog) have suggested that extractions can cause sleep #apnea. They state that extractions must reduce the jaw size and therefore the tongue space which in turn, forces the tongue back thereby compromising the airway. This sounds possible in theory but what is the evidence? I'm glad you asked!

It has been claimed that extractions narrow the jaws. Arch dimensions depend upon the points from which you measure them. If you measure the distance between the upper molars before and after closing premolar/bicuspid #extraction spaces then the distance between them does get smaller so it seems the jaw has become narrower. However if you measure between the canine teeth, the measured distance gets larger - what the? This paradox is due to the shape of the jaw being an arch which is wider in the molar region and tapers becoming narrower toward the canine teeth. As extraction spaces are closed, the molars move forward (into the narrower part of the arch) while the canines move back (into the wider part) but the actual arch itself has not necessarily narrowed, it can even have widened depending upon the mechanics and archform used by the treating orthodontist. Depending upon the reason for extractions (e.g. crowding vs. protrusive teeth) the front teeth may or may not move back. For example, if the extraction space is merely used to alleviate crowding, then the arch may not have reduced in size at all. However if the front teeth have been retracted back (to reduce protrusion) then there is potentially less space for the tongue.

Studies looking at patients with protrusive upper and lower teeth requiring extraction of four teeth (two upper and two lower first bicuspids) have varied in their findings. There are a number of limitations to these studies as some use imaging systems which only evaluate in 2-dimensions (x-rays), the subjects are upright and not lying down as we do when asleep (when apnea occurs), and none assess the dynamic changes in the airway with function even if in 3D (e.g. CT) so they only offer a limited appraisal of the subject's airway. Keeping this in mind let's examine their findings. Two studies in American and Arab subjects found no change in the upper airway as did a third study.  However three other studies in Oriental and Indian subjects did find a reduction in the airway size. So why the difference in findings? Apart from random chance, there could be racial differences in the response of the airway to movement of the teeth, or how people in these countries are treated. It has been postulated that craniofacial factors make a larger contribution to the severity of sleep disordered breathing in Chinese than in Caucasians. In addition, a 7th study in Turkish subjects examined trying to retract the teeth a lot (maximum anchorage) vs. not much or none (minimum anchorage) found there was an increase in the airway in the minimum anchorage cases while the maximum anchorage cases where the goal was to retract the front teeth as they were too protrusive did result in a reduction in the airway dimensions. One of the studies found that the reduction in airway seemed to mostly be related to any retraction of the lower front teeth potentially making less space for the tongue. Protrusion of the front teeth is more common in subjects with an Oriental heritage than in those of European ethnicity and so the goal in Oriental subjects undergoing extraction treatment tends to be aimed at greater retraction of the front teeth.

So perhaps extractions where the goal is to retract the front teeth as much as possible may reduce the airway size in some patients. Most orthodontic patients in Western countries are treated without extractions (only ~15-20% in the USA and Australia for example) and an even smaller number of these are treated with four premolars and a minority with maximum anchorage. Blockage of the airway in apnea is not always at the base of the tongue and many are behind the soft palate or velopharynx. What we must also consider is that a reduction in the airway size on an x-ray does NOT mean that you will develop sleep apnea as the airway will still be sufficiently patent for most if not all. Conversely studies using plates have found that despite advancing the lower jaw and potentially increasing the airway, ~13% of subjects actually got worse! Research has also demonstrated that measures of the airway volume or area could not predict who would respond to treatment. Sleep apnea is a complex condition with those highest at risk being middle-aged, over-weight males and the use of alcohol and sedatives can also increase the risk.

What do humans and bull-dogs have in common? We both can suffer from snoring and sleep apnea (well, about 3% of humans do)! Bull dogs are the result of selective breeding (believed to be mastiffs and pugs) resulting in an altered facial and airway form. One theory for humans is that to evolve the ability of speech, this required our jaws to be shorter, the tongue positioned further back and our larynx to descend. Speech was a major advantage and the backward and downward positioning of our faces was not a disadvantage for an animal (that's us humans!) that on average only lived to about 50 years of age until about 100 years ago. However now with many living into their 80's and beyond a backward positioned tongue due to evolution's 'selective breeding' may be placing a small number of us at risk for obstructive sleep apnea (#OSA). Based upon current research we cannot with certainty totally discount that some may be at more risk with extractions, but if there is a risk it would be a small percentage of the subjects that meet the criteria of maximum anchorage and other risk factors so it would be a very small risk indeed if it does exist at all. A recent review article in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine compared patients having had four premolars/bicuspids removed with those having none out and found the prevalence of sleep apnea was not significantly different between groups and concluded that past orthodontic extraction treatment is not supported as a significant risk factor in the cause of obstructive sleep apnea.

Dr Peter Miles is the orthodontist at Newwave Orthodontics in Caloundra, Australia and teaches orthodontics part-time at the University of Queensland. He is a visiting lecturer at Seton Hill University in the USA as well as lectures internationally. Peter is one of the editors and authors of the orthodontic textbook, 'Evidence-Based Clinical Orthodontics'.

QUICK OR FAST BRACES - DO THEY EXIST?

Claims of faster treatment are easy to make and we would all like this but is it realistic? In the 1960's and 70's Begg braces/brackets were very popular and were thought to provide faster treatment as they allowed very rapid tipping and alignment. However this was at the price of less control over the root position which took more time to recover later and so they are seldom used nowadays. Other bracket designs that allow tipping have been shown to actually be slower than conventional brackets when closing extraction spaces.

More recently self-ligating brackets such as the Damon bracket, Smart-Clip, In-Ovation, Quick and more were introduced with claims of faster treatment. This was marketed well and became quite popular but with little evidence to support the claims. Dr Miles conducted the first prospective clinical trial and found there was actually no difference during initial alignment which was later confirmed by other researchers. The most recent evidence suggests that despite the claims of faster treatment, the self-ligating brackets may actually be slower than conventional #braces by about 2 months! Braces claiming to be fast are use brackets and wires just like conventional systems and so would not be expected to be any quicker. They claim lower friction but this allows the greater tipping and lack of control seen in earlier systems that proved to be slower. Let's look at an analogy - when you build a house the frame goes up quickly but then seems to slow when the smaller jobs are taking place such as the painting, tiling, etc. - but you don't want to move into your new home without this done do you? The same with braces - the initial alignment of teeth can be quite rapid but these are the simple tipping movements and the roots have not been moved into their correct and more stable positions. Your bite may need correction with elastics or other techniques and this is also a slower movement. These are the ‘detailing’ stages of #orthodontics and are slower and less obvious but very important for the most aesthetic and stable result possible.

The skill of the practitioner in placing the brackets as accurately as possible and using the correct wires, mechanics and appointment intervals affect your treatment duration. However treatment time is also affected by patient cooperation (e.g. are you wearing your elastics as directed?) and biological variation – everyone is different and their teeth move at different rates and respond in varying amounts. The same wire and adjustments will have differing responses in different people and your orthodontist will adjust your treatment based upon what they observe. Even extremely precise methods of bracket positioning using computer-aided design and manufacture, or robotic wire-bending are prone to the same problems of variation in response. Orthodontists are aiming for the best outcome possible for you and this variation is why your #orthodontist cannot give precise times to the eternal question; "When am I getting my braces off?".

Dr Peter Miles is the orthodontist at Newwave Orthodontics in Caloundra, Australia and teaches orthodontics part-time at the University of Queensland and is a visiting lecturer at Seton Hill University in the USA. Peter is one of the editors and authors of the orthodontic textbook, 'Evidence-Based Clinical Orthodontics'. Importantly, he has no financial interest in any products mentioned in these Blogs.