A variety of metals and alloys are employed in the field of orthodontics, of which the construction of wires happens to be predominant. Through this systematic review, our primary goal was to review and assess studies focusing on complications that emerged during or directly after the completion of an orthodontic treatment plan. We then used a meta-analysis to determine how these complications affected the patients who were receiving orthodontic treatment. A total of 634 documents were discovered after a thorough search of online journals, and 416 of the papers were initially selected. In the end, 14 papers, including in vitro experiments, literature reviews, comparative analyses, observational studies, and retrospective studies, were chosen that met the requisite inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were difficulties related to orthodontic treatment in all of the studies listed in our systematic review, but their severity varied greatly. The effects of gingival mucosa and root resorption were two of the most often mentioned periodontal problems in this review. More long-term studies are required to confirm the involvement of an orthodontic component in these issues, but the majority of the complications were assessed to initially arise after the treatment plan had begun and to resolve with time.

The majority of patients strongly favor the use of aligners in the present time, especially with the advancement in esthetic dentistry. Today’s market is flooded with aligner companies, many of which share the same therapeutic ethos. We therefore carried out a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate research that had looked at various aligner materials and attachments and their effect on orthodontic tooth movement in relevant studies. A total of 634 papers were discovered after a thorough search of online journals using keywords such as “Aligners”, “Orthodontics”, “Orthodontic attachments”, “Orthodontic tooth movement”, and “Polyethylene” across databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane. The authors individually and in parallel carried out the database investigation, removal of duplicate studies, data extraction, and bias risk. The statistical analysis demonstrated that the type of aligner material had a significant impact on orthodontic tooth movement. The low level of heterogeneity and significant overall effect further support this finding. However, there was little effect of attachment size or shape on tooth mobility. The examined materials were primarily concerned with influencing the physical/physicochemical characteristics of the appliances and not tooth movement directly. Invisalign (Inv) had a higher mean value than the other types of materials that were analyzed, which suggested a potentially greater impact on orthodontic tooth movement. However, its variance value indicated that there was also greater uncertainty associated with the estimate compared to some of the other plastics. These findings could have important implications for orthodontic treatment planning and aligner material selection. Registration: This review protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42022381466).

Background: The efficacy of orthodontic treatments is often influenced by patient acceptance and compliance. This study aims to compare patient acceptance and compliance between clear aligners and lingual braces in a randomized clinical trial. Materials and Methods: A total of 100 patients requiring orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated into two groups: clear aligners (n = 50) and lingual braces (n = 50). Data on patient acceptance and compliance were collected through self-reported questionnaires and clinical observations over a period of 12 months. Results: Patient acceptance was significantly higher in the clear aligner group, with 80% reporting high levels of comfort, compared to 60% in the lingual braces group (P < 0.05). Compliance rates were 92% for clear aligners and 85% for lingual braces (P = 0.1). Conclusion: Clear aligners showed a higher level of patient acceptance and a slightly better compliance rate, although the difference was not statistically significant. These findings suggest that clear aligners may be a preferable option for patients prioritizing comfort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare airway widths among skeletal Class I malocclusion patients with different vertical facial patterns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 103 lateral cephalograms of skeletal Class I patients (mean age of 20 ± 2.3 years) with no history of orthodontic treatment, trauma, facial syndromes, or nasopharyngeal dysfunction were included. Based on the Frankfort–mandibular plane angle measurements, the sample was divided into three groups: low-angle, high-angle, and normal-angle groups. Upper and lower pharyngeal airway widths were measured as described by McNamara. The analysis of variance test was performed to compare the means of groups. Pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey's post-hoc test. Differences were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. RESULTS: ANOVA showed a significant mean difference between the groups for both the upper and lower airway widths withP values of 0.011 and 0.003, respectively. Tukey Pairwise comparisons showed the upper airway width to be significantly narrower in the high-angle group compared to the normal-angle (P = 0.021) and low-angle groups (P = 0.013). Furthermore, the lower airway width in the high angle group was significantly narrower than the normal angle (P = 0.020) and low-angle groups (P = 0.017). There were no statistically significant differences between normal and low angle groups. CONCLUSIONS: The upper and lower pharyngeal widths in the Class I high-angle group were significantly narrower than those in the normal-angle and low-angle groups.

This meta-analysis aimed to compare Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients with non-MFS populations based on orofacial health status to combine publicly available scientific information while also improving the validity of primary study findings. A comprehensive search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Medline, and Web of Science, for articles published between 1 January 2000 and 17 February 2022. PRISMA guidelines were followed to carry out this systematic review. We used the PECO system to classify people with MFS based on whether or not they had distinctive oral health characteristics compared to the non-MFS population. The following are some examples of how PECO is used: P denotes someone who has MFS; E stands for a medical or genetic assessment of MFS; C stands for people who do not have MFS; and O stands for the orofacial characteristics of MFS. Using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, independent reviewers assessed the articles’ methodological quality and extracted data. Four case-control studies were analyzed for meta-analysis. Due to the wide range of variability, we were only able to include data from at least three previous studies. There was a statistically significant difference in bleeding on probing and pocket depth between MFS and non-MFS subjects. MFS patients are more prone to periodontal tissue inflammation due to the activity of FBN1 and MMPs. Early orthodontic treatment is beneficial for the correction of a narrow upper jaw and a high palate, as well as a skeletal class II with retrognathism of the lower jaw and crowding of teeth.

Objective: To investigate the variation between the non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate (NSCLP) and non-cleft (NC) subjects in relation to the lip morphology (LM) and nasolabial angle (NLA). Materials and Methods: Lateral cephalogram (Late. Ceph.) of 123 individuals (92 NSCLP [29 = bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), 41 = unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), 9 = unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA), 13 = unilateral cleft lip (UCL)], and 31 NC) who did not undergo any orthodontic treatment were investigated. By WebCeph, an artificial intelligence- (A.I.) driven software, 2 (two) parameters of LM, namely upper lip to E line (LM-1) and lower lip to E line (LM-2), and NLA analysis was carried out for each individual. Multiple tests were carried out for statistical analysis. Results: The mean ± SD observed for LM-1, LM-2, and NLA for NC individuals were 1.56 ± 2.98, 0.49 ± 3.51, and 97.20 ± 16.10, respectively. On the other hand, the mean ± SD of LM-1, LM-2, and NLA for NSCLP individuals were 4.55 ± 4.23, 1.68 ± 2.82, and 82.02 ± 14.66, respectively. No significant variation was observed with respect to gender and side. NSCLP (different types) and NC individuals showed significant disparities in LM-1 and NLA. Conclusion: It can be concluded that parameters of lip morphology such as LM-1, LM-2, and NLA vary among NSCLP and NC individuals.