Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chate3
IN BRIEF
PRACTICE
Comprehensive orthodontic treatment typically comprises an initial phase of alignment over a period of four to six
months, followed by vertical, transverse and antero-posterior corrections, space closure, finishing and detailing to enhance
dental and facial aesthetics and function. Each course of treatment involves a series of decisions and alternatives relating
to objectives, appliance design and treatment mechanics. In recent years there has been increasing interest in short-term
approaches to treatment with more limited objectives and the avoidance of phases traditionally considered integral to
successful treatment. In this review the veracity of accepted truths in orthodontics are discussed; specifically, the importance of initial molar relationship, final incisor relationship, the merits of orthodontic extractions, anticipated treatment
times, the value of modern fixed appliance systems, the importance of torque expression and the relative merits of bonded
retainers and inter-proximal reduction are considered.
INTRODUCTION
The delivery of healthcare in the UK has seen
considerable change in recent years with
the reconfiguration of NHS healthcare commissioners, increasing emphasis on patientreported outcome measures, and budgetary
restrictions. Dentistry has not been immune
to these developments with contractual
changes particularly noteworthy. Historically,
orthodontic treatments were predominantly
undertaken by non-specialist general dental
practitioner (GDP) providers within the NHS,
but this situation gradually changed with the
acceptance that fixed appliances in the hands
of specialists were capable of superior results.1
In recent years, however, alternatives to conventional courses of fixed appliance orthodontics have emerged. Much of this treatment is
offered by GDPs, predominantly in the form of
accelerated orthodontics or treatment involving aesthetic removable and fixed appliances2
but this has been accompanied by a significant
increase in successful litigation claims.3
Similar patterns of care, with delivery
involving both specialists and non-specialists,
Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry, Queen Mary University of
London, London, E1 2AD; 2Eastman Dental Institute,
London; 3Vice Dean, Faculty of Dental Surgery, The
Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Nicolson Street,
Edinburgh, EH8 9DW
*Correspondence to: Dr Padhraig Fleming
Email: padhraig.fleming@gmail.com
1
Refereed Paper
Accepted 26 June 2014
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.41
British Dental Journal 2015; 218: 105-110
have been observed in other dental disciplines including paediatric dentistry4 and
periodontics,5 and are also established internationally in orthodontics.6 What differentiates this trend within orthodontics from that
in other specialties is that a significant proportion of the treatments offered by general
practitioners have more limited objectives
than conventional specialist-delivered care;
some of it is also suggested as an adjunct
to produce a more conservative restorative
solution than would be possible without
recourse to orthodontics. In this paper, nine
areas of debate and misunderstanding concerning orthodontic planning and treatment
are discussed.
ARE MOLAR
RELATIONSHIPS RELEVANT?
The ideal Class I molar relationship was originally defined by Angle7 and later refined by
Andrews.8 Angles initial belief was that the
molars were the cornerstone to the occlusion.
While adolescent growth may alter skeletal
relationships, typically reducing the convexity of the lower face and improving skeletal
II relationships slightly,9 molar relationship
is generally considered to be constant once
the permanent dentition is established.10 The
molar relationship is integral to determining
the final incisor relationship. Specifically,
with Class I molar relationships and an
intact dentition devoid of inter-arch toothsize discrepancy, non-extraction treatment
is likely to translate into a Class I incisor
relationship. Moreover, in the presence of
IS A CLASS I INCISOR
WORTH AIMING FOR?
Traditionally, achievement of Class I incisors has been an objective of comprehensive orthodontic treatment. The rationale
for this relates to the likelihood of stability
and aesthetics associated with this relationship between the upper and lower incisors.
Stability stems from the combination of a
normal overjet and overbite with the maxillary incisors resting on the tips of the
105
PRACTICE
mandibular incisors, which in turn may be
stabilised with a fixed lingual retainer.
Retroclined incisors, characteristic of
Class II division 2 incisor relationship, in
particular are believed to be a by-product
of a high resting position of the lower lip.11,12
While alignment of upper incisors in such
cases tends to be particularly rapid, acceptance of a residual overjet is often unwise
because of a marked tendency for the lip-totooth relationship to re-establish itself following treatment.10 It is, therefore, highly
likely that the maxillary incisors will retrocline following treatment in the absence of
the stabilising effect of the lower incisors.
Occasionally, a decision may be made to
accept a residual overjet in the presence of
a skeletal II discrepancy not severe enough
to warrant orthognathic correction, whereby
retraction of the maxillary incisors would
compromise the support of the upper lip. In
such instances, permanent bonded retention
is mandatory and the potential instability of
the outcome should be discussed during the
informed consent process.13,14
SHOULD NON-EXTRACTION
TREATMENT BE UNDERTAKEN
WHEREVER POSSIBLE?
The reliance on extractions as part of orthodontic treatment has fluctuated over the
decades. At the turn of the twentieth century, Edward Angle espoused non-extraction fixed appliance treatment with arch
development involving buccal expansion
and incisor proclination.15 After initially following this philosophy, Tweed subsequently
abandoned such an approach, on the basis
that 80% of his recalls had poor facial aesthetics, occlusal instability and irreparable
damage of the investing tissues of the teeth
in the incisor and premolar regions.16
As a consequence, in the period between
the early 1950s to the late 1970s, many
orthodontic patients underwent premolar
extraction in the expectation of enhanced
post-treatment stability. Since then, there
has been a widespread desire within the
orthodontic community to curb the number
of permanent teeth removed for orthodontic
reasons; this tenet persists to the present day.
Although there is short-term inconvenience and discomfort associated with dental extractions,17 the severity of associated
pain has been shown to be less marked
than that arising from the initial engagement of an orthodontic aligning wire.18 In
addition, there is no proven risk to either
the oral health and function or to the facial
aesthetics of an individual who has had
dental extractions as part of orthodontic
treatment. Moreover, extractions are usually prescribed to relieve crowding in an
DOES COMPREHENSIVE
ORTHODONTICS TAKE TWOTO
THREEYEARS TO COMPLETE?
Comprehensive orthodontic treatment
encompasses an initial phase of alignment
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 218 NO. 3 FEB 16 2015
106
2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
PRACTICE
Table 2 Rapid tooth movement
Rapid movement of the crowns of teeth is not
new. It has certainly been around since the development of the round-wire Begg technique in the
1950s. With the introduction of shape-memory
effect (nickel-titanium) wires in the 1970s it
has been possible to align the crowns of very
irregular anterior teeth within just a few weeks,
even in adults. The problem is not the speed with
which the crowns are aligned; it is the stability of
the result, particularly as the roots of the teeth
remain close to their original positions. Therefore,
while orthodontic appliances can be removed
prematurely once alignment has been achieved,
it is recommended that torque expression and
occlusal detailing is undertaken to enhance
aesthetic and functional outcomes, enhancing the
prospect of prolonged stability.
There should be an index of suspicion surrounding novel methods including those concerning
faster tooth movement, particularly when these
claims are made by those with vested financial interests.36 Tooth movement relies on the
remodelling or displacement of bone. Remodelling
proceeds at a finite pace, which has an upper
limit as does non-surgical displacement of bone.
Distraction osteogenesis provides the most rapid
physiological adjustment of bone position but as
yet this is not a primary orthodontic technique.
C
Fig.3 Class I malocclusion with severe
crowding and palatal displacement of
both maxillary lateral incisors (Fig.3a).
Following alignment the lateral incisors
have been brought into the correct
position; however, there is inadequate
labial root torque on the upper left lateral
incisor (Figs3b-c). Thick wires with high
elastic modulus are required to address this.
Torque delivery can be time consuming but
is valuable in terms of prospective stability
and dental aesthetics
E
Fig.4 This Class I malocclusion with
palatally-displaced lateral incisors was
treated with fixed appliances (Figs4a-b).
Sufficient torque was delivered to the
maxillary lateral incisors producing an
acceptable aesthetic result following
15months of treatment (Fig.4c). Routine
follow-up 18 months following removal
of the appliances, the result has remained
stable despite the lack of bonded retention
(Figs4d-e)
107
2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
PRACTICE
Fig.5 Class I crowded case treated with customised lingual appliances over a seven-month period. The lack of uniformity of lingual surfaces
mean that stock brackets may have poor adaptation to lingual surfaces making treatment more complex
outcomes, particularly where teeth were significantly displaced before treatment (Fig.4).
IS BONDED RETENTION
A GUARANTEE OF STABILITY?
The increasing emphasis on non-extraction treatment has brought the use of
fixed retainers into sharper focus (Table5).
Bonded retention is not without problems:
fixed lingual retainers may encourage plaque
accumulation with potential periodontal
implications.38 Consequently, their use may
not be appropriate in the presence of poor
oral hygiene. Failure rates with fixed retainers have been shown to be high.39 As such,
permanent retention does not remove the
requirement that the teeth are placed in positions of soft tissue balance. Additionally,
prediction of relapse on an individual
basis has proven impossible, invoking the
need for a long-term retention strategy for
many patients.
Furthermore, while bonded retainers may
maintain rotational correction of teeth, they
may be inadequate to resist soft tissue pressures, for example, those arising following correction of bimaxillary proclination.
Consequently, inclination changes and tooth
migration may arise despite intact retainers; augmentation of fixed retainers with
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 218 NO. 3 FEB 16 2015
108
2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
PRACTICE
Table 4 Some newer techniques are well
proven and highly effective
TADs have dramatically advanced the range and
type of orthodontic tooth movements that are
achievable. Where growth has slowed to adult
levels, certain types of tooth movement that
were once impossible can now be carried out
routinely including intrusion of blocks of teeth to
reduce a deep overbite or to intrude over-erupted
molars, thereby correcting anterior open bites
previously only correctable through a combined
orthodontic-surgical approach, involving superior
repositioning of the posterior maxilla with an
osteotomy.
removable retainers may moderate this tendency. It has also been demonstrated that
residual activity in bonded retainers may
lead to dramatic inclination changes;40 prolonged supervision of retention is therefore
advisable (Fig.6).
IS INTER-PROXIMAL
REDUCTION SAFE?
There is long-term evidence indicating the
safety of inter-proximal reduction.41 In this
research no increased risk of either caries or
periodontal problems tenyears subsequent
to the procedure was demonstrated. All
inter-proximal reduction in the study was
carried out by an internationally-renowned
orthodontist; therefore, while the procedure
may well be performed safely, it is important
that it is undertaken with care and attention
aiming to produce a smooth surface without
inter-proximal ledges risking plaque accumulation and associated risk of periodontal
compromise, sensitivity and caries progression (Fig.7).
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
CONCLUSION
Traditional orthodontics involves a complex decision-making process not merely
a binary decision of whether one form of
treatment is appropriate or otherwise. The
treating clinician is charged with choosing between an array of treatment options,
appliances and auxiliaries based on a range
of considerations including facial aesthetics,
dental aesthetics, and intra- and inter-arch
relationships. There is a wide diversity of
presentations of malocclusion warranting
tailored treatment planning and mechanics.
Therefore, while short courses of orthodontics performed on a non-extraction basis
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
PRACTICE
Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 93: 423428.
23. Luppanapornlarp S, Johnston L E Jr. The effects of
premolar-extraction: a long-term comparison of
outcomes in clear-cut extraction and nonextraction
Class II patients. Angle Orthod 1993; 63: 257272.
24. Paquette DE, Beattie JR, Johnston L E Jr. A longterm comparison of nonextraction and premolar
extraction edgewise therapy in borderline Class
II patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;
102: 114.
25. Kirschen RH, OHiggins EA, Lee RT. The Royal
London Space Planning: an integration of space
analysis and treatment planning: Part I: Assessing
the space required to meet treatment objectives. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118: 448455.
26. Hamilton R, Goonewardene MS, Murray K.
Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and
conventional pre-adjusted brackets. Aust Orthod J
2008; 24: 102109.
27. Mavreas D, Athanasiou AE. Factors affecting the
duration of orthodontic treatment: a systematic
review. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30: 386395.
28. OBrien K, Wright J, Conboy F etal. Prospective,
multi-centre study of the effectiveness of orthodontic/orthognathic surgery care in the United
Kingdom. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;
135: 709714.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
110
2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved