See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272358947

Myths and realities in orthodontics

Article  in  British dental journal · February 2015

DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.41 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

4 313

3 authors, including:

Padhraig S Fleming Stephen Springate

Queen Mary, University of London UCL Eastman Dental Institute
137 PUBLICATIONS   1,564 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   267 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessment of quality of Prosthodontic literature View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Padhraig S Fleming on 12 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Myths and realities IN BRIEF
• Delineates myth and reality in

in orthodontics orthodontics.

PRACTICE
• Clarifies the limitations and benefits of
definitive orthodontics.
• Illustrates nine common misconceptions
P. S. Fleming,*1 S. D. Springate2 and R. A. C. Chate3 concerning orthodontic treatment.

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 impor-
tance 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 com-
missioners, increasing emphasis on patient-
reported 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 con-
ventional courses of fixed appliance orthodon-
tics have emerged. Much of this treatment is
offered by GDPs, predominantly in the form of
‘accelerated orthodontics’ or treatment involv-
ing 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,
1
Barts and The London School of Medicine and Den-
tistry, 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
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 disci-
plines including paediatric dentistry4 and
periodontics,5 and are also established inter-
nationally in orthodontics.6 What differenti-
ates this trend within orthodontics from that
in other specialties is that a significant pro-
portion 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 con-
cerning orthodontic planning and treatment
are discussed.
ARE MOLAR
RELATIONSHIPS RELEVANT?
The ideal Class I molar relationship was orig-
inally defined by Angle7 and later refined by
Andrews.8 Angle’s initial belief was that the
molars were the cornerstone to the occlusion.
While adolescent growth may alter skeletal
relationships, typically reducing the convex-
ity 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 tooth-
size discrepancy, non-extraction treatment
is likely to translate into a Class I incisor
relationship. Moreover, in the presence of
moderate to severe crowding, consideration
should be given to symmetrical extraction of
four premolar units to preserve Class I molar
and incisor relationships.
With Class II molar relationships at the
outset in an intact dentition, simple align-
ment is likely to translate into a residual
overjet following treatment. Consequently,
consideration should be given to correcting
the molar relationship to Class I with one of
a number of adjuncts including: a functional
appliance, fixed Class II corrector, headgear
or upper and lower extractions if achieve-
ment of Class I incisors is a treatment objec-
tive (Fig. 1). Alternatively, in an uncrowded
lower arch, consideration could be given to
accepting the Class II molar relationships
by camouflaging the incisor relationship
with the loss of maxillary premolars alone
(Fig. 2). The alternative would be to accept a
residual overjet following treatment, but this
would have implications both for aesthetics
and post-treatment stability, likely requiring
a commitment to life-long retention.
IS A CLASS I INCISOR
WORTH AIMING FOR?
Traditionally, achievement of Class I inci-
sors has been an objective of comprehen-
sive orthodontic treatment. The rationale
for this relates to the likelihood of stability
and aesthetics associated with this relation-
ship between the upper and lower incisors.
Stability stems from the combination of a
normal overjet and overbite with the max-
illary incisors resting on the tips of the

BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 218 NO. 3 FEB 16 2015 105

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

 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, accept-
ance of a residual overjet is often unwise
because of a marked tendency for the lip-to-
tooth relationship to re-establish itself fol-
lowing treatment.10 It is, therefore, highly
likely that the maxillary incisors will retro-
cline 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 Fig. 1 In a growing patient this Class II
molar relationship was corrected to
such instances, permanent bonded retention
Class I. Consequently, incisor and canine
is mandatory and the potential instability of relationships were corrected allowing the
the outcome should be discussed during the overjet to be reduced
informed consent process.13,14

SHOULD NON-EXTRACTION effort to minimise either transverse or

TREATMENT BE UNDERTAKEN
WHEREVER POSSIBLE?
The reliance on extractions as part of ortho-
dontic treatment has fluctuated over the
decades. At the turn of the twentieth cen-
tury, Edward Angle espoused non-extrac-
tion fixed appliance treatment with ‘arch
development’ involving buccal expansion
and incisor proclination.15 After initially fol-
lowing this philosophy, Tweed subsequently
abandoned such an approach, on the basis
that 80% of his recalls had poor facial aes-
thetics, 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 inconven-
ience and discomfort associated with den-
tal extractions,17 the severity of associated
pain has been shown to be less marked
than that arising from the initial engage-
ment 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 usu-
ally prescribed to relieve crowding in an
antero-posterior arch length changes dur-
ing treatment; it would therefore be coun-
terintuitive to expect significant changes
in the facial profile to arise with carefully
planned treatment. At various times extrac-
tions have been implicated in causing (i)
temporo-mandibular joint dysfunction
(TMJD), purportedly stemming from pos-
terior displacement of the mandible and
displacement of the articular disc; (ii) pre-
mature ageing, related to the loss of lip sup-
port; and (iii) compromised smile aesthetics
(Table 1). Careful systematic review of the
available evidence has failed to support
such views;19 moreover, there is now wide
acceptance that extractions have the poten-
tial to improve both smile aesthetics and
facial aesthetics with careful planning.20,21
While there is some evidence of enhanced
stability with extraction approaches,22 in
other research little difference between post-
treatment incisor irregularity with extrac-
tion or non-extraction treatment has been
reported.23,24 Reliable data on the merit of
orthodontic extractions cannot be derived
from retrospective research due to the inevi-
table confounding effects of contrasting
space conditions, likely to have prompted
the extraction decision before treatment. The
ideal study to assess this controversial area
would be a randomised controlled trial with
prolonged follow-up. At present, ethical con-
cerns preclude conducting a trial in this area.
However, it is accepted that the decision to
extract should be made on an individual basis
accounting for space conditions, including
Fig. 2 Class II division 1 incisor relationship
with Class II molar and canine relationships
of the left side. Non-extraction treatment
without active distal molar relationship to
Class I would lead to an increased overjet at
the end of treatment. Maxillary premolars
were therefore removed and anchorage
supported with temporary anchorage devices
to facilitate overjet reduction and relief of
crowding. The Class II molar relationships
were preserved but both incisor and canine
relationships corrected to Class I
Table 1 Adverse effects of orthodontics
Orthodontics is not without adverse conse-
quences. For example, overly rapid tooth move-
ments or heavy forces (especially in adults) can
lead to pulpal death but there is no convincing
evidence that orthodontic movement results in
TMJD or that carefully conducted treatment leads
to adverse effects on the face such as ‘dishing-in’
or collapse of the lips.
crowding, overjet, torque requirements and
facial aesthetics. Ideally, such decisions should
be supported with formal space analysis.25
DOES COMPREHENSIVE
ORTHODONTICS TAKE TWO TO
THREE YEARS TO COMPLETE?
Comprehensive orthodontic treatment
encompasses an initial phase of alignment

106 BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 218 NO. 3 FEB 16 2015

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved


Table 2 Rapid tooth movement
Rapid movement of the crowns of teeth is not
new. It has certainly been around since the devel-
opment 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.
Table 3 Be wary of claims regarding
novel treatment methods
There should be an index of suspicion surround-
ing novel methods including those concerning
faster tooth movement, particularly when these
claims are made by those with vested finan-
cial 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.
typically in nickel-titanium wires, usu-
ally taking in the region of four to six
months, followed by vertical, transverse
and antero-posterior corrections, space clo-
sure and finishing and detailing (Table  2).
The duration of orthodontic cases in both
adolescence and adulthood is typically in
the region of 15 months.26 Treatment involv-
ing extractions is usually slightly lengthier
than non-extraction treatment.27 Combined
orthodontic-surgical care is likely to result
in an extension to treatment, although treat-
ment times can be quite variable; similarly,
treatment incorporating mechanical eruption
of unerupted or ectopic teeth is usually quite
prolonged.28,29
IS TREATMENT FASTER WITH
MODERN BRACKETS?
Orthodontic appliances have undergone
considerable refinement over the last
30 years. The pre-adjusted edgewise appli-
ance was introduced by Andrews in the
1970s,30 largely based on occlusal corner-
stones derived from analysis of untreated
ideals. 8 Pre-adjusted edgewise brackets
were the first to be programmed to impart
specific degrees of tip, torque, in-out and
rotational control on each tooth thereby
reducing the need for wire-bending. The
most vaunted and positively marketed
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 218 NO. 3 FEB 16 2015
PRACTICE
A
A
B
B
C
Fig. 3 Class I malocclusion with severe
C
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 (Figs 3b-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
D
development since the introduction of
the pre-adjusted edgewise appliance have
been self-ligating brackets (Table 3), which
incorporate either a slide or clip mechanism
to entrap the archwire, removing the need
for elastomeric or stainless steel auxiliary
ligatures.
However, there is no evidence to sug-
gest reduced treatment times with mod-
ern self-ligating bracket systems.31 While
these brackets have demonstrated reduced E
frictional resistance to archwire sliding in Fig. 4 This Class I malocclusion with
palatally-displaced lateral incisors was
laboratory studies, there is now a wealth of
treated with fixed appliances (Figs 4a-b).
prospective clinical evidence indicating that Sufficient torque was delivered to the
this theoretical advantage does not translate maxillary lateral incisors producing an
into shorter treatment times. In particular, acceptable aesthetic result following
there have been three randomised trials com- 15 months of treatment (Fig. 4c). Routine
paring treatment duration with self-ligation follow-up 18 months following removal
of the appliances, the result has remained
and conventional brackets, none of which stable despite the lack of bonded retention
has demonstrated a time saving with the (Figs 4d-e)
newer systems.32–35
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
IS TORQUE DELIVERY IMPORTANT?
Torque can be defined as ‘rotation without
translation’ or ‘preferential movement of the
root with a stationary crown’. Torque is a
product of force couples generated between
bracket and wire; rectangular stainless steel
wires with high elastic modulus and minimal
play between wire and bracket slot are nec-
essary for effective torque delivery (Fig. 3).
Torque delivery is considered to be an inte-
gral part of orthodontic treatment; effec-
tive torque delivery is one of six recognised
occlusal keys necessary to produce an ideal
occlusal result.8 In addition, torque delivery
is often important in the buccal segments
as alleviation of crowding in round wires
results in bucco-lingual inclination changes,
which may compromise occlusal interdigita-
tion, overbite and stability. In the anterior
regions, appropriate torque contributes to
dental aesthetics; the labial face of the max-
illary central incisor should lie parallel to the
facial vertical for optimal dental aesthetics,
with greater requirement for palatal root
torque in the presence of increased lower
anterior facial height.37 In addition, torque
expression is important in producing stable
108
outcomes, particularly where teeth were sig-
nificantly displaced before treatment (Fig. 4).
ARE BETTER OUTCOMES ACHIEVED
WITH MODERN BRACKETS?
While novel techniques such as the use of
temporary anchorage devices (TADs) have
broadened the scope and enhanced the pre-
dictability of treatment (Table  4), there is
no evidence to suggest that refinement of
brackets has been accompanied by better
outcomes. Prospective research comparing
treatment times with self-ligating brackets
have also alluded to comparable levels of
occlusal improvement with these systems.32–35
Clearly, the quality of a course of orthodon-
tics is contingent more on the standards and
skills of the operator than on the bracket sys-
tem used. Both labial and lingual customised
appliances have been produced, with either
brackets, wires or both tailored to the indi-
vidual patient. Customised lingual appliances
have become particularly popular due to the
wide variation in the morphology of lingual
surfaces, which complicates adaptation of
stock brackets to these teeth and has a bear-
ing on torque delivery (Fig. 5).
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 218 NO. 3 FEB 16 2015
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
IS BONDED RETENTION
A GUARANTEE OF STABILITY?
The increasing emphasis on non-extrac-
tion treatment has brought the use of
fixed retainers into sharper focus (Table 5).
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 retain-
ers have been shown to be high.39 As such,
‘permanent’ retention does not remove the
requirement that the teeth are placed in posi-
tions 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 pres-
sures, for example, those arising follow-
ing correction of bimaxillary proclination.
Consequently, inclination changes and tooth
migration may arise despite intact retain-
ers; augmentation of fixed retainers with

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.
Table 5 Fixed retainers will not always
hold poorly planned tooth positions
If the dentition is moved beyond the zone of
soft tissue balance, the standard methods of
retention will not hold the new tooth positions
for long. Even fixed retainers will allow relapse,
the magnitude, nature and direction of which is
unpredictable.
removable retainers may moderate this ten-
dency. It has also been demonstrated that
residual activity in bonded retainers may
lead to dramatic inclination changes;40 pro-
longed 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 ten years 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 accu-
mulation and associated risk of periodontal
compromise, sensitivity and caries progres-
sion (Fig. 7).
CONCLUSION
Traditional orthodontics involves a com-
plex decision-making process not merely
a binary decision of whether one form of
treatment is appropriate or otherwise. The
treating clinician is charged with choos-
ing 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 orthodon-
tics performed on a non-extraction basis
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 218 NO. 3 FEB 16 2015
Fig. 6 Presentation of an orthodontic
case ten years following removal of
fixed appliances with rotation and axial
inclination changes of terminal teeth on
the retainer (22, 43). The changes may
stem from residual activity in the bonded
retainer wire
may improve alignment in the short term,
it is important that treatment of this nature
is carefully planned, restricted to amenable
cases and suitably retained.
1. Richmond S, Andrews M, Roberts C T. The provision
of orthodontic care in the general dental services of
England and Wales: extraction patterns, treatment
duration, appliance types and standards. Br J Orthod
1993; 20: 345–350.
2. Maini A. Short-term cosmetic orthodontics for gen-
eral dental practitioners. Br Dent J 2013; 214: 83–84.
3. Dental Protection website. Available at: http://www.
dentalprotection.org/uk/ (accessed 12 September
2013).
4. McQuistan M R, Kuthy R A, Daminano P C, Ward
M M. General dentists’ referrals of 3- to 5-year-old
children to paediatric dentists. J Am Dent Assoc
2006; 137: 653–660.
5. Lee J H, Bennett D E, Richards P S, Inglehart M R.
Periodontal referral patterns of general dentists:
lessons for dental education. J Dent Educ 2009; 73:
199–210.
6. Aldawood S, Ampuan S N, Medara N, Thomson
W M. Orthodontic treatment provision and referral
preferences among New Zealand general dental
practitioners. Aust Orthod J 2011; 27: 145–154.
7. Angle E H. Treatment of malocclusion of the teeth,
7th ed. Philadelphia: White Dental Manufact Co,
1907.
8. Andrews L F. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J
Orthod 1972; 62: 296–309.
9. Pollard L E, Mamandras A H. Male postpubertal
facial growth in Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 108: 62–68.
10. Nanda R S, Meng H, Kapila S, Goorhuis J. Growth
changes in the soft tissue facial profile. Angle
Orthod 1990; 60: 177–190.
11. Lapatki B G, Mager A S, Schulte-Moenting J, Jonas
I E. The importance of the level of the lip line and
resting lip pressure in Class I I, Division 2 malocclu-
sion. J Dent Res 2002; 81: 323–328.
12. Lambrechts H, De Baets E, Fieuws S, Willems G. Lip
and tongue pressure in orthodontic patients. Eur J
Orthod 2010; 32: 466–471.
13. Chate R A C. Truth or consequences: the potential
implications of short-term cosmetic orthodontics
general dental practitioners. Br Dent J 2013; 215:
551–553.
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
PRACTICE
Fig. 7 This patient presented having
commenced treatment with a general
practitioner with a removable aligner
system. The practitioner had undertaken
liberal inter-proximal reduction of the
lower anteriors to facilitate alignment,
introducing unaesthethic morphological
changes and ledges inter-proximally. The
teeth were subsequently aligned with fixed
appliances in less than six months
14. Chate R A C. Short-term orthodontics debate. Br
Dent J 2014; 216: 388–389.
15. Angle E H. Treatment of malocclusion of the teeth
and fractures of the maxillae, 6th ed. Philadelphia:
SS White, 1900.
16. Tweed C H. Indications for the extraction of teeth in
orthodontic procedure. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1944;
30: 405–428.
17. Chaushu G, Becker A, Zeltser R, Vasker N, Branski S,
Chaushu S. Patients’ perceptions of recovery after
routine extraction of healthy premolars. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131: 170–175.
18. Jones M, Chan C. The pain and discomfort experi-
enced during orthodontic treatment: a randomized
controlled clinical trial of two initial aligning arch
wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 102:
373–381.
19. Luther F, Layton S, McDonald F. Orthodontics for
treating temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; CD006541.
20. Parekh S, Fields H W, Beck F M, Rosenstiel S F. The
acceptability of variations in smile arc and buccal
corridor space. Orthod Craniofac Res 2007; 10:
15–21.
21. Hagler B L, Lupini J, Johnston L E Jr. Long-term
comparison of extraction and nonextraction alter-
natives in matched samples of African American
patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114:
393–403.
22. Little R M, Riedel R A, Artun J. An evaluation
of changes in mandibular anterior alignment
from 10 to 20 years postretention. Am J Orthod
109
 PRACTICE
Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 93: 423–428.
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: 257–272.
24. Paquette D E, Beattie J R, Johnston L E Jr. A long-
term comparison of nonextraction and premolar
extraction edgewise therapy in ‘borderline’ Class
II patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;
102: 1–14.
25. Kirschen RH, O’Higgins E A, Lee R T. 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: 448–455.
26. Hamilton R, Goonewardene M S, Murray K.
Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and
conventional pre-adjusted brackets. Aust Orthod J
2008; 24: 102–109.
27. Mavreas D, Athanasiou A E. Factors affecting the
duration of orthodontic treatment: a systematic
review. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30: 386–395.
28. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F et al. Prospective,
multi-centre study of the effectiveness of ortho-
dontic/orthognathic surgery care in the United
Kingdom. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;
135: 709–714.
110
View publication stats
29. Fleming P S, Scott P, Heidari N, Dibiase A T. Influence
of radiographic position of ectopic canines on the
duration of orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod
2009; 79: 442–446.
30. Andrews L F. The straight-wire appliance. Explained
and compared. J Clin Orthod 1976; 10: 174–195.
31. Fleming P S, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in ortho-
dontics: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2010; 80:
575–584.
32. Fleming P S, DiBiase A T, Lee R T. Randomized clini-
cal trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with
self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic
appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;
137: 738–742.
33. Di Biase A T, Nasr I H, Scott P, Cobourne M T.
Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using
Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic
bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective
randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2011; 139: e111–e116.
34. Johannson K, Lundstrom F. Orthodontic treatment
efficiency with self-ligating and conventional
edgewise twin brackets. A prospective randomized
clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 929–934.
35. Songra G, Clover M, Atack N E et al. Comparative
assessment of alignment efficiency and space
closure of active and passive self-ligating vs
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 218 NO. 3 FEB 16 2015
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
conventional appliances in adolescents: a single-
centre randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: 569–578.
36. O’Brien K, Sandler J. In the land of no evidence, is
the salesman king? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2010; 138: 247–249.
37. Ross V A, Isaacson R J, Germane N, Rubenstein L K.
Influence of vertical growth pattern on faciolingual
inclinations and treatment mechanics. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 98: 422–429.
38. Pandis N, Vlahopoulos K, Madianos P, Eliades T.
Long-term periodontal status of patients with man-
dibular lingual fixed retention. Eur J Orthod 2007;
29: 471–476.
39. Booth F A, Edelman J M, Proffit W R. Twenty-year
follow-up of patients with permanently bonded
mandibular canine-to-canine retainers. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 70–76.
40. Renkema A M, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros
C. Long-term effectiveness of canine-to-canine
bonded flexible spiral wire lingual retainers. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: 614–634.
41. Zachrisson B U, Nyøygaard L, Mobarak K. Dental
health assessed more than 10 years after inter-
proximal enamel reduction of mandibular anterior
teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131:
162–169.