Introduction: Anchorage can be reinforced in many ways. Due to the variety of anchorage concepts, only a few general conclusions can be drawn. Therefore, more research is needed to investigate specific concepts with specific indications. The objective of this trial was to compare the anchorage capacities of miniscrews and molar blocks. Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted on 2 parallel arms. The trial was conducted at the Public Dental Service Orthodontic Clinic in Gavle, Sweden. Participants were adolescents who needed orthodontic treatment with a fixed appliance, extraction of the maxillary first premolars, and anchorage reinforcement. In group A, miniscrews were used as direct anchorage during space closure. In group B, molar blocks were used as anchorage reinforcement during leveling and alignment and space closure. The primary outcome was loss of anchorage assessed as maxillary first molar movement. Random allocation was maintained with a simple randomization stratified by sex. The observer was blinded to the allocations during the measurements. Results: Forty participants each were randomized to groups A and B. Results were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, meaning that all participants, successful or not, were included in the analysis. Group A showed a mean anchorage loss of 1.2 mm during leveling and alignment. During space closure with miniscrews, no significant anchorage loss was found. Group B showed mean anchorage losses of 1.4 mm during leveling and alignment and 2.4 mm during space closure. No serious harms were detected. The first molar rotation, torque, and tipping showed different characteristics during the treatment phases. Conclusion: Miniscrews can be recommended for anchorage reinforcement. Depending on the need for anchorage reinforcement, miniscrews can be inserted at the beginning of treatment or when space closure starts. Molar blocks cannot be recommended for anchorage reinforcement. Protocol: The protocol was published after trial commencement.

Response to: Pain and discomfort following insertion of miniscrews and premolar extractions: A randomized controlled trial. The Angle Orthodontist; 2016;86:891–899. https://dspace.mah.se/handle/2043/21687

Background: Serial 3D models can be used to analyze changes, but correct superimposition is crucial before measurements can be assessed. Earlier studies show that every palatal structure changes due to growth or treatment. Here, we describe a new method that uses an algorithm-based analysis to perform superimpositions and measurements in maxillary 3D models. This method can be used to identify deformations. In a second step, only unchanged areas are used for superimposition. Objectives: This study investigates the validity and reliability of this novel method. Methods: Digital 3D models from 16 cases were modified by an independent 3D engineer to simulate space closure and growth. True values for tooth movements were available as reference. Measurements and repeated measurements were performed by four observers. Results: The total tooth movement had an absolute mean error of 0.0225 mm (SD 0.03). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.9996. Rotational measurements had an absolute mean error of 0.0291 degrees (SD 0.04 degrees) and an ICC of 0.9999. Limitations: Serial models need to be taken with a moderate interval (1 to 2 years). Obvious changed areas in the palate need to be cropped before processing the models. Conclusion: The tested method is valid and reliable with excellent accuracy and precision even when changes through growth or orthodontic treatment occur.

Objective: To analyse cost-effectiveness of anchorage reinforcement with buccal miniscrews and with molar blocks. We hypothesized that anchorage with miniscrews is more cost-effective than anchorage with molar blocks. Trial design: A single-centre, two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Methods: Adolescents (age 11–19 years) in need of treatment with fixed appliance, premolar extractions, and en masse retraction were recruited from one Public Dental Health specialist centre. The intervention arm received anchorage reinforcement with buccal miniscrews during space closure. The active comparator received anchorage reinforcement with molar blocks during levelling/alignment and space closure. The primary outcome measure was societal costs defined as the sum of direct and indirect costs. Randomization was conducted as simple randomization stratified on gender. The patients, caregivers, and outcome assessors were not blinded. Results: Eighty patients were randomized into two groups. The trial is completed. All patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median societal costs for the miniscrew group were €4681 and for the molar block group were €3609. The median of the difference was €825 (95% confidence interval (CI) 431–1267). This difference was mainly caused by significantly higher direct costs consisting of material and chair time costs. Differences in chair time costs were related to longer treatment duration. No serious harms were detected, one screw fractured during insertion and three screws were lost during treatment. Generalizability and limitations: The monetary variables are calculated based on a number of local factors and assumptions and cannot necessarily be transferred to other countries. Variables such as chair time, number of appointments, and treatment duration are generalizable. Owing to the study protocol, the benefit of miniscrews as a stable anchorage has not been fully utilized. Conclusions: When only moderate anchorage reinforcement is needed, miniscrews are less cost-effective than molar blocks. The initial hypothesis was rejected. Miniscrews provide better anchorage reinforcement at a higher price. They should be used in cases where anchorage loss cannot be accepted. Trial registration: NCT02644811

Objective: To evaluate whether retention is needed after orthodontic treatment of impacted maxillary canines.

Trial design: Two-arm parallel group single-centre randomized controlled trial.

Materials and methods: Sixty-three patients, 39 girls and 24 boys, were recruited to the study. The inclusion criteria were patients with at least one impacted or unerupted maxillary canine, and moderate irregularity of the maxillary six anterior teeth according to Little’s index (LI). After gaining informed consent from the patient and their custodians, the patients were randomized to one of two groups, i.e. to a non-retention group or a retention group. The randomization process was prepared and carried out by an independent person not involved in the trial and the randomization used blocks of 20 (10 + 10). Primary outcomes were changes in single contact point discrepancy, and LI measured on digitalized three-dimensional study casts 1-year post-treatment. The study casts were anonymized before assessment and the changes were blinded for the assessor. Data were evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. Thus, all randomized patients were incorporated into the final analysis. In the non-retention group a 10-week interim period was used to detect patients who eventually have a relapse immediately after treatment. If so, the patient got the arch-wire reinserted. Most patients in the retention group received a vacuum-formed retainer and pretreatment spacing cases got a bonded retainer.

Results: Mean irregularity change was 0.4 mm in the retention and 1.3 mm in the non-retention group (P < 0.001). Maximum change was 2.5 mm in the retention and 3.2 mm in the non-retention group (P < 0.001). Most changes in the non-retention group occurred during the 10-week interim period. In the non-retention group, one patient developed contact point discrepancy of >2 mm during the interim period and was realigned.HarmsOne patient met the stopping guideline criteria. This patient had the arch wire reinserted for 2 months. After realignment, the patient received a retention appliance.LimitationsThe trial was a single-centre study and short-term changes were evaluated.

Conclusions: Changes between the retention and the non-retention group were statistically but not clinically significant. Since satisfactory clinical results 1-year post-treatment were found in the non-retention group, retention does not appear to be needed. The 10-week interim period was useful in detecting patients who might have a relapse immediately after treatment.

Trial registration: The trial was not registered.

Background: Retention of the maxillary anterior teeth is commonly recommended to maintain the teeth in their corrected positions. Both fixed and removable retention methods are used, but the certainty of evidence is low.

Objective: To evaluate post-treatment changes in irregularity of the maxillary six anterior teeth and single tooth contact point discrepancy (CPD) of three different retention methods.

Trial design: Three-arm parallel group single-centre randomized controlled trial.

Materials and methods: Ninety patients, 54 girls and 36 boys, were recruited to the study. The inclusion criteria were adolescent patients treated with fixed appliances at least in the maxilla. After gaining informed consent from the patient and their custodians, the patients were randomized to one of three groups: bonded retainer 13–23, bonded retainer 12–22, and removable vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) covering the maxillary teeth including the second molars. The randomization, prepared by an independent person, used blocks of 30. The primary outcomes were changes in single CPD and Little’s irregularity index (LII) measured on digitalized three-dimensional study casts before and after 2-year retention. The study casts were anonymized before assessment and the changes were blinded for the assessor. Data were evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. Thus, all randomized patients were incorporated into the final analysis.

Results: The LII and CPDs increased slightly in all three groups without any statistically significant differences between the groups. The VFR group showed a small intercanine width increase and some more changes of canine rotations than in the other groups.

Harms: No harm was observed in any subjects and none of the patients needed retreatment.

Limitations: The trial was a single-centre study and short-term changes were evaluated.

Conclusions: All three retention methods showed equally effective retention capacity and all the changes found in the three groups were small and considered clinically insignificant. Thus, the null hypothesis was confirmed. All three methods can be recommended.

Trial registration: NCT04616755

Background: Maxillary bonded and removable retainers maintain teeth in correct positions following orthodontic treatment. There is insufficient evidence regarding the capacity of the retention methods to stabilize the maxillary teeth both during and after retention.

Objective: To evaluate retention capacity and 1-year post-retention changes in the irregularity of maxillary anterior teeth and single anterior tooth contact point discrepancy (CPD) of two bonded and one removable retention method.

Trial design: Three-arm parallel group single-centre randomized controlled trial.

Methods: Ninety adolescent patients treated with fixed orthodontic appliances were enrolled. After gaining informed consent, the patients were randomized in blocks of 30 by an independent person into one of three groups: A) bonded retainer 13-23; B) bonded retainer 12-22; and C) removable vacuum-formed retainer. The primary outcomes were changes in Little's irregularity index (LII) and single CPD measured on digitalized casts before retention (T1), after 2 years of retention (T2), and 1-year post-retention (T3).

Blinding: The digital casts were blinded for the outcome assessor.

Results: Data on all 90 patients were analysed according to intention-to-treat principles. Changes in LII during retention were 0.3 mm in group A, 0.6 mm in group B, and 1.0 mm in group C. No significant differences between the groups were seen (P > 0.05). Changes during post-retention were 1.1 mm in group A, 0.5 mm in group B, and 0.4 mm in group C. Group A showed more significant changes than groups B and C (P = 0.003). During the whole post-treatment period, no significant differences were shown between the groups (P > 0.05). CPD did not differ significantly between the groups at any point.

Harms: Three patients showed changes of LII over 3 mm or CPD over 2 mm during the post-retention period, and two accepted to be realigned.

Limitations: The trial was a single-centre study evaluating 1-year post-retention changes.

Conclusions: The changes were clinically insignificant during and after the retention period. Thus, all three methods showed equal retention capacity.

Trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.com (NCT04616755).

Objectives Chronic pain patients often suffer in multiple locations. In health care, examinations of bodily pain usually do not include questions about temporomandibular disorders (TMD); hence TMD symptoms and potential comorbidities are not regularly assessed. Therefore, the primary aim was to evaluate the prevalence of TMD in patients referred to a pain rehabilitation clinic, and the secondary aim was to evaluate possible factors associated with TMD symptoms. Methods Consecutive chronic pain patients referred to the Pain Rehabilitation Clinic at the Umeå University Hospital in Sweden were included. TMD symptoms were assessed using three valid screening questions - 3Q/TMD. Pain sites, emotional distress, kinesiophobia, and demographics were obtained from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation. Results In total, 188 (144 women) chronic pain patients (mean age 41.8 years) were included. Of these, 123 (96 women) answered affirmatively to at least one of the 3Q/TMD. The relative risk of TMD symptoms among the patients with chronic pain, in comparison to the general population, was 7.1 (95% CI 5.9-8.4). Age was the only independent variable associated with TMD among the patients (p = 0.018). Conclusions The prevalence of TMD symptoms was higher in a chronic pain population compared to the general population. The 3Q/TMD questionnaire could be a suitable screening tool at pain rehabilitation clinics to identify patients for further examination of involvement of pain in the trigeminal region. Our results reinforce the clinical importance of paying attention to concurrent widespread pain and local TMD symptoms.