This systematic literature review set out to investigate the relationship between serum vitamin D levels and dental implants in terms of survival rates, marginal bone loss, and associated complications. The review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, performing an electronic search in four databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus), complemented by a manual search up to April 2022. Four articles were selected for analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale tool was used to assess the quality of evidence of cohort studies, and the Cochrane bias assessment tool was used to assess the quality of evidence of randomized clinical trials. The study included 1089 patients restored with 1984 dental implants, with follow-up periods ranging from 20–240 months. Cases presenting lower serum vitamin D levels obtained slightly worse results in terms of marginal bone loss. Longer follow-up periods are needed in order to determine whether serum vitamin D levels affect implant survival rates and osseointegration over time.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the perception of periodontal pain in patients treated with either fixed multibrackets or removable alignment systems with a monthly follow-up over a period of twelve months. Materials and Methods: This longitudinal clinical study comprised a sample of 140 patients (72 women; 68 men) divided into two groups of 70 patients each: the bracket group (BG) with conventional fixed brackets using the MBT technique with a 0.022″ slot and the Invisalign group (IG) with aligners (Invisalign). The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to quantify patient-reported pain. Pain analysis was conducted monthly at 4 (T1), 8 (T2), and 24 h (T3) post-follow-up as well as at 2 (T4), 3 (T5), 4 (T6), 5 (T7), 6 (T8), and 7 days (T9) post-follow-up during the first twelve months after starting orthodontic treatment. Results: Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed between both study groups in the mean pain scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) during the twelve-month follow-up period, except for during the eighth month of treatment. In the first month, the group with conventional brackets reported higher pain scores. From the second month onwards, we observed that patients with aligners described a higher level of pain compared to the group of patients with conventional brackets. In both experimental groups, though at different evaluation periods, we found that the peak of maximum pain occurred between 24 and 48 h (T3–T4) after monthly follow-up appointments; from this point, the pain decreased until reaching minimum values from the fifth day onwards (T7). Conclusions: In the first month of treatment, the patients with conventional fixed multibrackets reported the highest levels of pain compared to those with removable aligners. From the second month on, this trend changed. The patients with removable aligners reported the highest levels of pain. Therefore, the orthodontic system used influenced the perception of pain in patients.

The aim of this research project was to analyze the influence of slot size and low-friction on pain and the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of subjects receiving fixed appliances. A group of 120 patients (61 male, 59 female) were chosen for this randomized clinical trial. Participants were classified into four groups (30 patients in each). We compared conventional (C group) and low-friction (LF group) brackets and 0.018″ and 0.022″ slots. Pain was assessed at 4 (T0), 8 (T1), and 24 (T2) hours, and 2 (T3), 3 (T4), 4 (T5), 5 (T6), 6 (T7), and 7 (T8) days after the start of treatment by using the visual analogue scale (VAS). OHRQoL was assessed at 1 month using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14). Data was analyzed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test with post-hoc Bonferroni correction. For pain on the visual analogue scale, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found for T0 and T3. For OHRQoL, statistically significant differences (p < 0.01) were found in the domains of physical pain, psychological discomfort, psychological disability, and overall OHIP. The group with 0.022″ low-friction brackets showed a lower pain score and less impact on OHRQoL. The type of bracket system used and bracket slot size influenced patients’ perceptions of pain and their OHRQoL.

Tooth color is a determining factor in the fabrication of dental prostheses. The aim of the present study is to compare two measurement methods used in the field of dentistry: dental guides and spectrophotometry. A total of 2768 natural teeth were measured using the Vita Classical and Vita 3D-Master dental guides (Vita-Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany), as well as a Vita Easyshade Compact spectrophotometer (Vita-Zahnfabrik). The measurements were carried out by one operator under suitable illumination conditions at 5500 degrees Kelvin. The obtained results show that the measurements obtained with the Vita Classical dental guide classifies teeth into the A-B categories, while the spectrophotometer preferentially classifies teeth into the B-C categories. The correlation coefficients obtained with the dental guides ranged from −0.32 to −0.39 (p < 0.01), while those for the spectrophotometer ranged from −0.35 to −0.55 (p < 0.01). Therefore, we can conclude that the spectrophotometer is more reliable and reproducible in its measurements than the dental guides.

The objective of this prospective clinical study was to analyze the pain (intensity, location and type) that patients presented after the placement of different types of orthodontic appliances: conventional, low friction, lingual and aligners. The sample consisted of 120 patients divided into four groups: conventional (CON), low friction (LF), lingual (LO) and aligners (INV). The participants were given the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (Ortho-SF-MPQ), where they had to record the pain intensity (no pain, mild, moderate or intense) and the periodontal location at different time points, from the first 4 h to 7 days after the start of treatment. In all the study groups, the most frequent location was both anterior arches, with maximum values between 56.7% (CON group at 24 h) and 30% (LO group at 4 h). The “whole mouth” and “complete lower arch” locations were indicated only by the patients in the lingual group. Regarding pain intensity, the patients reported a higher percentage of mild–moderate pain during the first 3 days of treatment (96.7% in LO at 4 h, 86.7% in CON, 83.3% in LF and 90% in INV at 24 h); later, the reported pain decreased to no pain/mild pain, especially in the lingual group, until reaching values close to zero at 7 days post-treatment. The most frequent type of pain was acute in the low friction and lingual groups (with maxima of 60% and 46.7% at 24 h, respectively). On the contrary, in the conventional (36.7% at 4 h) and Invisalign (40% at 24 h) groups, the sensitive type was the most frequent. There are differences regarding periodontal pain in its intensity, location and type according to the use of different orthodontic techniques.

Objective: The aim of this review was to evaluate the currently available scientific evidence on the efficacy of different methods as accelerators of tooth movement during orthodontic treatment: corticotomies, piezocision, micro-osteoperforations (MOP), photobiomodulation (LLLT and LED laser) and microvibrations. Search Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus and Medline databases in May 2024. Selection Criteria: We selected randomized controlled trials based on acceleration of tooth movement during orthodontic treatment. Articles that were not randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were not published in the last ten years or corresponded to animal trials as well as those dealing with orthognathic surgery, distraction osteogenesis, electric currents, pulsed electric fields and pharmacological approaches were excluded. Results: Twenty-three studies were included in this review. All trials show accelerated tooth movement after low-level laser application, and seven studies support the efficacy of surgically assisted orthodontic treatment with corticotomies, piezocision or MOP. No article indicates statistically significant differences between the application of microvibration during orthodontic treatment and conventional treatment. No negative effects on the periodontium, loss of dental vitality or serious root resorption were reported in any publication, except in a study carried out with MOP (with an increase in root resorption). Conclusions: There is some evidence that low-level laser therapy and surgical methods are effective techniques in accelerating tooth movement during orthodontic treatment, while the evidence is very weak for vibration.