The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the failure rates of miniscrews related to their specific insertion site and explore the insertion site dependent risk factors contributing to their failure. An electronic search was conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Knowledge, Scopus, MEDLINE and PubMed up to October 2017. A comprehensive manual search was also performed. Randomised clinical trials and prospective non-randomised studies, reporting a minimum of 20 inserted miniscrews in a specific insertion site and reporting the miniscrews’ failure rate in that insertion site, were included. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Studies were sub-grouped according to the insertion site, and the failure rates for every individual insertion site were analysed using a random-effects model with corresponding 95% confidence interval. Sensitivity analyses were performed in order to test the robustness of the reported results. Overall, 61 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Palatal sites had failure rates of 1.3% (95% CI 0.3–6), 4.8% (95% CI 1.6–13.4) and 5.5% (95% CI 2.8–10.7) for the midpalatal, paramedian and parapalatal insertion sites, respectively. The failure rates for the maxillary buccal sites were 9.2% (95% CI 7.4–11.4), 9.7% (95% CI 5.1–17.6) and 16.4% (95% CI 4.9–42.5) for the interradicular miniscrews inserted between maxillary first molars and second premolars and between maxillary canines and lateral incisors, and those inserted in the zygomatic buttress respectively. The failure rates for the mandibular buccal insertion sites were 13.5% (95% CI 7.3–23.6) and 9.9% (95% CI 4.9–19.1) for the interradicular miniscrews inserted between mandibular first molars and second premolars and between mandibular canines and first premolars, respectively. The risk of failure increased when the miniscrews contacted the roots, with a risk ratio of 8.7 (95% CI 5.1–14.7). Orthodontic miniscrew implants provide acceptable success rates that vary among the explored insertion sites. Very low to low quality of evidence suggests that miniscrews inserted in midpalatal locations have a failure rate of 1.3% and those inserted in the zygomatic buttress have a failure rate of 16.4%. Moderate quality of evidence indicates that root contact significantly contributes to the failure of interradicular miniscrews placed between the first molars and second premolars. Results should be interpreted with caution due to methodological drawbacks in some of the included studies.

This review aims to compare the effectiveness of en masse and two-step retraction methods during orthodontic space closure regarding anchorage preservation and anterior segment retraction and to assess their effect on the duration of treatment and root resorption. An electronic search for potentially eligible randomized controlled trials and prospective controlled trials was performed in five electronic databases up to July 2017. The process of study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed by two reviewers independently. A narrative review is presented in addition to a quantitative synthesis of the pooled results where possible. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for the methodological quality assessment of the included studies. Eight studies were included in the qualitative synthesis in this review. Four studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. En masse/miniscrew combination showed a statistically significant standard mean difference regarding anchorage preservation − 2.55 mm (95% CI − 2.99 to − 2.11) and the amount of upper incisor retraction − 0.38 mm (95% CI − 0.70 to − 0.06) when compared to a two-step/conventional anchorage combination. Qualitative synthesis suggested that en masse retraction requires less time than two-step retraction with no difference in the amount of root resorption. Both en masse and two-step retraction methods are effective during the space closure phase. The en masse/miniscrew combination is superior to the two-step/conventional anchorage combination with regard to anchorage preservation and amount of retraction. Limited evidence suggests that anchorage reinforcement with a headgear produces similar results with both retraction methods. Limited evidence also suggests that en masse retraction may require less time and that no significant differences exist in the amount of root resorption between the two methods.

Extraction of lower first permanent molars in children is common. There is uncertainty among clinicians as to whether a ‘compensating extraction’ (removal of the upper first permanent molar to prevent it over erupting) is necessary despite current guidelines recommending this. As a result, unnecessary dental extractions may be carried out or children may be failing to receive extractions required to achieve optimal long-term oral health. In addition, the decision to extract fewer or more teeth affects management options (local anesthetic injections alone, inhalation sedation or general anesthesia) needed to support the child with the surgical procedure(s).

To provide data from the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) national clinical audit on temporary anchorage device (TAD) use following the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NIHCE) The Audit commenced on 1 January 2008 and is still ongoing. This article reports the data for TADs placed from 1 January 2008 to 1 November 2013. Audit data was collected from participants using a system of both on-line data entry and hard copy forms. The criteria and standards for the audit were set following the NIHCE report in conjunction with the Development and Standards Committee of the BOS. Virtually all participants used the on-line data entry available on the BOS website. The data submitted was checked and entered manually into an Excel spreadsheet, and transferred to SPSS for analysis. Written information and documented discussion of risks were provided in over 90% of TADs placed, but 17.4% were placed without a specific signed consent form. Temporary anchorage device failure rate was 24.2% overall. Among failed TADs, 93.1% were lost or removed due to excess mobility. Infection or inflammation resulting in loss or removal was reported in 6% of TADs. The only audit standard that was met was failures due to infection of inflammation. The rest of the audit standards were not met. Recommendations are made to address these issues.

Edgewise fixed orthodontic appliances are available in two different bracket slot sizes (0.018 and 0.022 inch). Both systems are used by clinicians worldwide with some orthodontists claiming the superiority and clinical advantages of one system over the other. However, the scientific evidence supporting this area is scarce and weak. This leaves the clinician’s choice of bracket slot system to clinical preference. We aim to compare the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch pre-adjusted bracket slot systems in terms of the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, undertaken in the secondary care hospital environment in the NHS Tayside region of Scotland (United Kingdom). A total of 216 orthodontic patients will be recruited in three centers in secondary care hospitals in NHS Tayside. The participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slot systems (n = 108 for each group) using Victory series™ conventional pre-adjusted bracket systems (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, United States). Baseline records and outcome data collected during and at the end of orthodontic treatment will be assessed. The primary outcome measures will be the duration of orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches. The secondary outcome measures will be the number of scheduled appointments for orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches, treatment outcome using Peer Assessment Rating index (PAR), orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (as measured using periapical radiographs) and the patient’s perception of wearing orthodontic appliances. The results from the current study will serve as evidence to guide the clinician in deciding whether the difference in bracket slot size has a significant impact on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338 .