The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and radiological presentation of cleidocranial dysplasia (CCD) in our patient group and to compare them with other reported cases by a systematic review (SR) of the literature. The study comprises two elements, a complete series of all diagnosed patients at the Center for Craniofacial Genetics at the University of Regensburg, Germany, and a SR. Relevant literature was identified by electronic databases, review of citation lists and hand searching of key journals. The principal selection criterion was that the study should contain as many pertinent cases as possible. The presented signs and symptoms were assigned to the following categories: "supernumerary teeth", "failure of eruption", "hypoplastic maxilla" and "clavicular sign". Additionally, the family history was taken into account. From the 410 English, German or French articles, 40 single case presentations and 17 multiple case studies remained that met the selection criteria. This report reviews the data of 283 patients with CCD including our own patient cohort of 24 individuals. Dental signs such as supernumerary teeth and eruption failure were expressed in over 93.5%. Skeletal symptoms such as hypoplastic maxilla and the clavicular sign were exhibited in over 84.3%. The prevalence of spontaneous mutations differs slightly when comparing the single case studies (72.0%) with our patient data (58.3%). The fraction of spontaneous mutations in multiple case studies was 5.0%. The diagnosis of CCD can be difficult when typical features are not clearly expressed. Since the multiple case studies concentrated on specific clinical aspects, an overall ranking including all associated findings was not possible. Owing to their prevalence, we recommend referencing to the described list of clinical signs as major symptoms for the pathognomy in CCD, since they are infrequent in other conditions and in the general population. To categorize the expression of CCD, more interdisciplinary studies are necessary. Nevertheless, a subjective classification is possible according to the related restrictions in the patients' quality of life.

The purpose of this study was to compare the frictional properties of two self-ligating aesthetic brackets, Opal (Ultradent Products) and Oyster (Gestenco Int.), with those of four conventionally ligated aesthetic brackets, Transcend (3M Unitek), Inspire (Ormco), Allure (GAC Int.), and Image (Gestenco Int.). Friction was tested with different wire dimensions and qualities [stainless steel (SS) wire 0.017 × 0.025 inches; SS 0.019 × 0.025 inches; TMA 0.019 × 0.025 inches] using a Zwick testing machine. All brackets had a 0.022-inch slot and the prescription of an upper first premolar of the Roth system (tip: 0 degrees, torque: −7 degree). Each bracket/archwire combination was tested 10 times and each test was performed with a new bracket/wire sample that was pulled through twice. Additionally, two sets of 30 Opal brackets each were aged with an ageing machine under standardized conditions for 9–10 and 18–20 months, respectively. Friction of the aged brackets was tested with identical wire dimensions and qualities using the same testing procedure. All data were statistically analysed with unsigned comparisons of all bracket/wire combinations using GLM and the Games–Howell post hoc test. The results showed Opal brackets to have the lowest frictional forces for all wire dimensions and qualities. Furthermore, friction was lower at a significant level (P ≤ 0.05) compared with all other brackets. Only the Oyster bracket had similar values in combination with a 0.019 × 0.025 inch SS wire. Aged Opal brackets showed higher values than new ones, but still lower frictional forces than the four conventional aesthetic brackets. Friction was comparable with the new Oyster bracket.

Summary: Objective: This study aimed to assess oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in relation to associated covariates in orthodontic patients of different age groups (children, adolescents, and adults) in a cross-sectional study. Methods: A total of 898 subjects (50.6% females, 49.4% males; mean age 16.89 years) undergoing orthodontic treatment anonymously completed the German version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-G14) to assess OHRQoL in addition to completing 23 other items. Descriptive, exploratory statistical analysis and multiple linear regression modelling were performed. Results: The mean score of the OHIP-G14 was 8.3 for the 6- to 11-year olds, 8.9 for the 12- to 17-year olds, and 12.6 for adults. Physical pain (Subscale 2) was the highest factor in all groups. Additionally, a relevant factor was Subscale 3 (psychological discomfort). A linear regression model showed that, in the adolescent group, aesthetics in combination with pain had a significant negative influence on OHRQoL, whereas, in the adult group, function in combination with pain showed the same significant negative influence. Second, except for the children, fixed appliances had a significant negative effect on OHRQoL compared to removable appliances. Conclusions: Our study showed that the majority of the 6- to 11-year olds and 12- to 17-year olds reported a good OHRQoL. Nevertheless, adolescents and adults who reported aesthetic/pain and function/pain problems, respectively, as reasons for orthodontic treatment showed a significant occurrence for reduced OHRQoL. Fixed appliances, in comparison with removable appliances, also resulted in a significant reduction in OHRQoL for both groups.

Purpose: To investigate the bracket transfer accuracy of the indirect bonding technique (IDB). Methods: Systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus through November 2021. Selection Criteria: In vivo and ex vivo studies investigating bracket transfer accuracy by comparing the planned and achieved bracket positions using the IDB technique were considered. Information concerning patients, samples, and applied methodology was collected. Measured mean transfer errors (MTE) for angular and linear directions were extracted. Risk of bias (RoB) in the studies was assessed using a tailored RoB tool. Meta-analysis of ex vivo studies was performed for overall linear and angular bracket transfer accuracy and for subgroup analyses by type of tray, tooth groups, jaw-related, side-related, and by assessment method. Results: A total of 16 studies met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. The overall linear mean transfer errors (MTE) in mesiodistal, vertical and buccolingual direction were 0.08 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.10), 0.09 mm (0.06; 0.11), 0.14 mm (0.10; 0.17), respectively. The overall angular mean transfer errors (MTE) regarding angulation, rotation, torque were 1.13° (0.75; 1.52), 0.93° (0.49; 1.37), and 1.11° (0.68; 1.53), respectively. Silicone trays showed the highest accuracy, followed by vacuum-formed trays and 3D printed trays. Subgroup analyses between tooth groups, right and left sides, and upper and lower jaw showed minor differences. Conclusions and implications: The overall accuracy of the indirect bonding technique can be considered clinically acceptable. Future studies should address the validation of the accuracy assessment methods used.