Skip to Content
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

9 January 2023

Future of Orthodontics—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Emerging Trends in This Field

,
,
and
1
Orthodontic Division, Preventive Dentistry Department, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka 72345, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Dental Research Cell, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai 72345, India
3
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Daffodil lnternational University, Dhaka 1216, Bangladesh
4
Center of Medical and Bio-Allied Health Sciences Research, Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman P.O. Box 346, United Arab Emirates

Abstract

Technology is rapidly evolving in the modern world, and the accompanying developments due to its influence are shaping each and every aspect of our life, with the field of orthodontics being no exception. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine such trends in orthodontics and hypothesize which ones would emerge and continue in the near future. After a thorough search of online journals using keywords such as “3D printing,” “Aligners,” “Artificial intelligence,” “Future trends,” “Orthodontics,” and “Teleorthodontics” across databases of PubMed-MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus, a total of 634 papers were initially recovered. Technological advancements in 3D printing, Computer-aided design and Computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM), biopolymers and Teleorthodontics were the most important categories of development seen across the 17 studies that we selected for our review. All the investigations selected for this systematic review depicted aspects of orthodontics that were influenced by rapid technological changes and could potentially become mainstream in the coming times. However, caution was sought to be observed in the usage/adoption of some of these trends, with social media usage amongst both patients as well as orthodontists being a prime example of this.

1. Introduction

Dental problems such crooked teeth, misaligned jaws, and abnormal bite patterns are the focus of the science of orthodontics, which also focuses on their diagnosis, prevention, and treatment [1,2]. Jaw and tooth misalignments are currently a very common issue. According to the American Association of Orthodontics (AAO), 50% of people have malocclusions severe enough to require orthodontic care. This number drops to less than 10% when implanting orthodontics that are medically necessary, according to the same AAO statement [3,4]. There is not enough credible scientific evidence to support the benefits of orthodontic treatment for health. Numerous researchers are attempting to resolve this significant orthodontic issue by developing new materials and methods [5]. A few months to a few years may pass during the course of treatment, and braces and other appliances will be used to gradually realign the teeth and jaws. Jaw surgery might be required in situations with severe malocclusion. Children’s bones are more pliable than adults’, thus starting treatment before the child reaches maturity may make things easier and reduce challenges [6,7].
With the development of advanced manufacturing technologies, research, and design, as well as the rising popularity of three-dimensional (3D) imaging modalities, the implementation of this rapidly evolving technological aspect of society has advanced noticeably over the past ten years. It has now permeated every technological area, including industrial fields, manufacturing processes, military applications, medical fields, and research where conventional methods are employed. Mobile applications (apps), for instance, are expected to play a significant part in the management of modern pleasant and appealing therapies, where patient compliance is crucial. In addition to the usual verbal encouragement given by orthodontists to young patients undergoing orthodontic treatment, patients’ social networks such as Instagram are already playing an increasingly crucial role in daily life [8]. It is evident that both doctors and patients stand to benefit greatly from this technology given the emergence of apps linked to orthodontics and the speedy development of artificial intelligence. More advanced AI technologies have lately become available for orthodontic applications. With the help of technologies such as three-dimensional convolutional neural networks (3D CNN), a huge potential for automated 3D cephalometric evaluation straight from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) or face growth forecasts exists [9].
Another area where technology has immensely aided medical practitioners is in imaging and diagnosis. Imaging is a crucial and important part of diagnostic and planning in orthodontics. When necessary, intraoral radiographs have been utilized as a backup for panoramic and cephalometric radiographs, which have historically been employed largely for initial diagnostic and therapeutic follow-up evaluation. The CBCTs have proven to be of great assistance to patients with complex oral and maxillofacial disorders [10]. CBCT allows for a more thorough understanding of the patient’s anatomy, and the data from these images can be integrated with images and 3D surface models to produce dynamic, patient-specific anatomical reconstructions and the potential for 3D treatment planning. It is possible to develop a number of tools using algorithms to transform the raw data from these images into sizable data sets and possibly apply artificial intelligence to find anatomical differences and/or diseases [11] because of the enormous variety of structures that are visible on these images. Many recent studies are focusing on mining the anatomical structure data based on predefined imaging features such as signal-to-noise ratio, windowing, and levelling to enable the use of artificial intelligence to help detect subtle changes in anatomy and any incipient lesions which may not have been picked up by humans. The method has limited application and is not yet ready for use in the craniofacial area, typically concentrating on a few disorders. Due to the complexity of the structures in the craniofacial region and the high prevalence of incidental findings on CBCT images, an expert in radiologic interpretation of the oral and maxillofacial complex should assess the images in order to detect the presence of abnormal conditions and/or anatomical variations. This can be facilitated very well by artificial intelligence [12].
Additionally, the distinctive features of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak have illustrated the importance of health issues for the entire community [13]. Due to social distance, only essential services were kept open during the spring lockout in 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on oral dental professionals due to the widespread closure of dental clinics [14,15]. The pandemic’s effects have persisted since orthodontic therapy is a drawn-out process that requires repeated visits [16]. Due to this, a large number of orthodontic patients who were already receiving treatment skipped their monthly sessions [17].
Hence, our primary objective with respect to conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine articles from the orthodontic literature that described current practices that are expected to become more common in the near future as well as future trends in the industry.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was registered to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number: CRD42022378377.

2.1. Protocol Employed

This systematic review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) strategy and rules from the Cochrane group and the book Orderly reviews in Health care: Meta examination [18].

2.2. Review Hypotheses

Through this systematic review, our primary objective was to review studies that were published in the orthodontic literature and that discussed the future trends in this field and shed light upon existing practices as well, which are supposed to become mainstream in the coming times.

2.3. Study Selection

There was a total of 634 documents discovered after extensive search on the online journals and 416 of the papers were selected initially. Following that, 362 similar/duplicate articles were eliminated, which resultantly made 54 separate papers available at first. The abstracts and titles of submissions were then reviewed, and a further 37 papers were eliminated. Finally, 17 documents that met the requisite inclusion and exclusion criteria were chosen, which primarily included in-vitro studies, literature reviews and comparative assessments (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Representation of selection of articles through PRISMA framework.

2.4. Inclusion Criterion

Articles that contained relevant data for our review objectives were selected for full-text screening. Studies that reported clinical trials, in-vitro studies, systematic/literature reviews containing substantial sample volume and detailed case reports were considered for inclusion in our review. We also monitored studies that possessed higher methodological quality.

2.5. Exclusion Criteria

The following were excluded from the scope of our systematic review: incomplete data, seminar presentations, scholarly articles, placebo-controlled studies, and opinion articles.
Since the literature available on this topic was quite scant in volume, we did not limit our search in terms of the time period when the studies were published, i.e., we took into account all the papers that were published with context to our topic (where the number of papers itself was found to be quite sparse in number). In addition, literature reviews and cases published in languages other than English were excluded.
We refrained from selecting any randomized control trials for our study, since we believe ours is a speculative investigation, analyzing the upcoming advances in the field of orthodontics that have the potential to be implemented in future practice, and as such it would be too early to analyze studies that implement the use of these technologies/advancements in human subjects. Moreover, studies involving the assessment of these trends on people were found to be few and far between with poor methodological value, hence their exclusion.

2.6. Search Strategy

Using relevant keywords, reference searches, and citation searches, the databases PubMed-MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus were all searched. “3D printing”, “Aligners”, “Artificial intelligence”, “Future trends”, “Orthodontics” and “Teleorthodontics” were the search terms used to access the database. The above keywords represented the majority of articles that were displayed in the search databases when we searched them using the following phrase- “Future trends in orthodontics”.

2.7. Data Selection and Coding

Two independent reviewers located the relevant papers by using the right keywords in various databases and online search tools. The chosen articles were compared, and a third reviewer was brought in if there was a dispute.
After choosing the articles, the same two reviewers independently extracted the following data: author, year of publication, country, kind of publication, study topic, population demographics (n, age), outcome measure(s), relevant result(s), and conclusion (s). The data were compared using the SPSS software (version 26.0, Chicago USA) and any differences were discussed with the third reviewer.
After the selection of the studies, case processing summary of selected studies for interrater reliability and the Chi2 test for interrater reliability of the selected studies was performed.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

After selecting data on the sample size, variables analyzed, and various elements of the investigations, the data were then entered into the Revman 5 program (version 5, Intel, Santa Clara, CA, USA, 2019) for meta-analysis. Forest plots illustrating the odds ratio for different study methodologies were obtained as part of the meta-analysis for our study.

2.9. Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias in the papers we picked was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 method [19]. AMSTAR 2 has been made available as a critical evaluation tool for systematic reviews, joining a number of other instruments that have served the same purpose. It consists of a 16-point checklist, as shown in Table 1 below. The domains listed in the Cochrane risk of bias instruments for systematic reviews are identified by the AMSTAR 2 risk of bias items. These show that an agreement was reached in each case following input from more than 30 methodology experts. This tool was employed to assess the effectiveness of our selected studies, since AMSTAR-2 is applicable for reviews consisting of both randomized and non-randomized studies which is applicable for a systematic review such as ours whose major objective is the analysis of trends/treatment modalities in orthodontics that might become mainstream in the coming times, which ultimately means the studies in our review would be primarily of a speculative nature.
Table 1. AMSTAR-2 16-point checklist of risk of bias assessment in studies selected for the systematic review.

3. Results

The study design, methodology employed, description and outcome are mentioned in Table 2. The results of the meta-analysis are provided in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5. Moreover, the Chi2 test for interrater reliability of the selected studies was performed as mentioned in Table 3 and Table 4 respectively.
Table 2. Description and outcomes as observed in the studies selected for the systematic review.
Figure 2. Odds ratio of in-vitro, observational and cohort-based studies selected in this systematic review which assessed the feasibility vs. non-feasibility rates of their respective trends represented on a forest plot after meta-analysis [23,30,32,34,35].
Figure 3. Risk ratio of in-vitro, observational and cohort-based studies selected in this systematic review which assessed the feasibility vs. non-feasibility rates of their respective trends represented on a forest plot after meta-analysis [23,30,32,34,35].
Figure 4. Odds ratio of systematic reviews which assessed the feasibility vs. non-feasibility rates of their respective trends represented on a forest plot after meta-analysis [20,26,27].
Figure 5. Risk ratio of systematic reviews which assessed the feasibility vs. non-feasibility rates of their respective trends represented on a forest plot after meta-analysis [20,26,27].
Table 3. Case processing summary of selected studies for interrater reliability.
Table 4. Chi2 test for interrater reliability of the selected studies.

4. Discussion

Observing orthodontic literature, it is anticipated that 3D applications will overtake 2D applications as the most often measured domain since clinical applications of scanning, printing, and related software have captured the interest and imagination of both care providers and seekers in this decade [26]. According to the sub-categorization of domains, the 3D applications under our study have paid the most attention to the study of morphological and surface properties. On the other hand, little to no attention has been paid to the use of health resources, biocompatibility (such as the premature polymerization effect of 3D printed materials and the dynamics of ultrafine aerosol emission), occupational hazards, cost-benefit analyses, and patient-reported measures of outcome and treatment safety [28]. The authors do think that in the near future, more space will be devoted to these research fields in published literature [34].
It is fascinating to see that 27% of reported outcomes are influenced by social media and orthodontic marketing. Numerous studies have looked at how patients perceive, are aware of, and use health resources in the context of social media impacts. We sought to address a variety of issues, such as the study of tweets pertaining to orthodontics, the effect of social media on knowledge, patient use of social media, and the influence of media advertising on consumer perceptions [32]. However, there is little to no orthodontic literature that addresses issues such as the veracity of social media, the veracity of educational information, and creative marketing in the era of social media dominance. Without a doubt, it must be acknowledged that this media will have a considerable impact on how orthodontic treatment will be provided in the future. With 20% of the significant consideration, biomaterials, nanotechnology, biometrics, and battery-powered devices came in second. The main applications of nanotechnology have been in orthodontic adhesive fillers composed of nano-composites and nano-ionomers. On the other hand, gecko-inspired brackets, smart brackets, and polymers inspired by mussels garnered less attention and were mostly in the development or proof of concept stages. In influential articles, the first wire-mediated, true-scale Smart bracket was created and mechanically characterized. The idea of using sensor systems to control the 3D-force-moment of orthodontic brackets was quite exciting, but it has not yet been put to the test of telemetric energy and data transfer [37]. A study of similar methodology, but albeit a different objective, was carried out by Venezia et al. [38], where the clinicians aimed to evaluate the accuracy of orthodontic models for the production of clear aligners generated with four 3D printers featuring different technologies and belonging to different market segments. They observed that the accuracy of orthodontic models generated for clear aligners can be influenced by different technologies/market segments of the 3D printers used.
Information on patient education, orthodontic training, and tele-orthodontics was the least well-represented. Teleorthodontics is the use of telecommunications and information technology to facilitate public awareness campaigns and provide patients with particular orthodontic information [39,40]. Hansa et al. carried out a study to assess the use and range of tele-orthodontics [41]. The goal was to examine the impact of appointment efficiency, patient viewpoints, and patient demographics on the use of the remote monitoring software (Dental Monitoring, DM). The DM’s integrated platforms, including a patient-specific mobile app, a patented movement monitoring algorithm, and a web-based doctor dashboard, help to assess the treatment’s progress or post-treatment stability. However, the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely restricted patients’ ability to travel to their clinicians’ offices for treatment because of the extensive lockdown imposed across countries throughout the world in order to contain the virus, has increased the importance of the field of teleorthodontics [30,33,35].
Future orthodontic residents may receive valuable orthodontic teaching through virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) [42,43]. Although AR and VR in orthodontics are still in their infancy, advancements have been made in other dental specialties [41]. Haptic devices that considerably improve skills in tooth preparation by letting the operator feel the force during treatment. Orthodontic residents could employ AR and VR technologies to carry out virtual tasks such as bonding, inserting mini-implants, and bending wires in environments that closely resemble real life.
Another area where the profession of orthodontics has advanced significantly is using CAD/CAM technologies. In a study demonstrating the effectiveness of this method, Giudice et al. evaluated the fitting of prototyped splints that were digitally created (CAD) with various offset values and produced using two various biocompatible resins [44]. They discovered that the results were similar with both types of biocompatible resins utilized and that the splints with an offset value of 0.20 mm had reduced gap volume and deviation analysis values than those with offset values of 0.15 and 0.25 mm. Ye et al. conducted research on comparable parlance with the main goal of evaluating the accuracy of 3D-printed splints made from various dental model offsets [45]. Similar to Giudice et al.’s study [44], they found that 3D-printed splints made from offset dental models (offset 0.05 mm, 0.1 mm, and 0.2 mm) fitted teeth better than splints made from no-offset dental models.
The lack of randomized control trials can be attributed to be a major flaw in this systematic review of ours. However, the topic of emerging trends in the field of orthodontics as we mentioned are all about technologies that have the potential to become mainstream in the coming years, and that as such limits organizations/researchers from investing in these trends whose success is uncertain. In addition, orthodontic literature is suggestive of the fact that the aspect of changes in communication in orthodontics is quite under-researched, especially with regards to teleorthodontics or social media communication. Hence, we believe that more studies are needed to ascertain the pros/cons of these emerging trends so as to establish their credibility as trends that are beneficial to not just orthodontists but the patients as well.

5. Conclusions

It was clear through this systematic review and subsequent meta-analysis of the selected studies that orthodontics as a field is also evolving in sync with the advancement of technology, with techniques such as 3D printing, Teleorthodontics and biopolymers spearheading the changes brought upon the orthodontic landscape. However, all the changes that are happening cannot be gobbled up at once, caution and restraint being the most important aspects that need to be followed while adopting these advancements. Further studies are warranted, especially in cases of social media communication where both the patient and the orthodontic practitioner need to be careful in order to maintain their privacy in an increasingly online world.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K.A., H.A., B.K. and M.A.L.S.; methodology, M.K.A., H.A. and B.K.; software, M.K.A., H.A. and B.K.; validation, M.K.A. and H.A.; formal analysis, M.K.A., H.A. and B.K.; investigation, M.K.A., H.A. and B.K.; resources, M.K.A., H.A. and B.K.; data curation, M.K.A., H.A. and B.K.; writing—original draft preparation M.K.A., H.A., B.K. and M.A.L.S.; writing—review and editing. M.K.A., H.A., B.K. and M.A.L.S. visualization, M.K.A., H.A. and B.K.; project administration, M.K.A., H.A. and B.K.; funding acquisition, M.K.A., H.A., B.K. and M.A.L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are available within the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest with respect to this systematic review and meta-analysis.

References

  1. Kahn, S.; Ehrlich, P.; Feldman, M.; Sapolsky, R.; Wong, S. The Jaw Epidemic: Recognition, Origins, Cures, and Prevention. Bioscience 2020, 70, 759–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lyu, X.; Guo, J.; Chen, L.; Gao, Y.; Liu, L.; Pu, L.; Lai, W.; Long, H. Assessment of available sites for palatal orthodontic mini-implants through cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2020, 90, 516–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ngan, P.; Alkire, R.G.; Fields, H. Management of space problems in the primary and mixed dentitions. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1999, 130, 1330–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wexler, A.; Nagappan, A.; Beswerchij, A.; Choi, R. Direct-to-consumer orthodontics: Surveying the user experience. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2020, 151, 625–636.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Fadeev, R.; Lanina, A.; Li, P.; Chibisova, M.; Shkarin, V.; Prozorova, N. Method for quantitative assessment of dentofacial anomalies in child and adolescent orthodontics. Arch. Euromedica 2020, 10, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sarver, D.; William, R. Proffit, 1936–2018. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2019, 155, 146–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sutherland, K.; Vanderveken, O.M.; Tsuda, H.; Marklund, M.; Gagnadoux, F.; Kushida, C.A.; Cistulli, P.A. Oral Appliance Treatment for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: An Update. J. Clin. Sleep Med. 2014, 10, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Scribante, A.; Gallo, S.; Bertino, K.; Meles, S.; Gandini, P.; Sfondrini, M.F. The Effect of Chairside Verbal Instructions Matched with Instagram Social Media on Oral Hygiene of Young Orthodontic Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Caruso, S.; Caruso, S.; Pellegrino, M.; Skafi, R.; Nota, A.; Tecco, S. A Knowledge-Based Algorithm for Automatic Monitoring of Orthodontic Treatment: The Dental Monitoring System. Two Cases. Sensors 2021, 21, 1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Position statement by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2013, 116, 238–257, Erratum in Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2013, 116, 661. [CrossRef]
  11. Hosny, A.; Parmar, C.; Quackenbush, J.; Schwartz, L.H.; Aerts, H.J.W.L. Artificial intelligence in radiology. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2018, 18, 500–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Allareddy, V.; Vincent, S.D.; Hellstein, J.W.; Qian, F.; Smoker, W.R.K.; Ruprecht, A. Incidental Findings on Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images. Int. J. Dent. 2012, 2012, 871532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Data on Country Response Measures to COVID-19. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-data-response-measures-covid-19 (accessed on 19 November 2022).
  14. Spagnuolo, G.; De Vito, D.; Rengo, S.; Tatullo, M. COVID-19 Outbreak: An Overview on Dentistry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Soltani, P.; Baghaei, K.; Tavakoli Tafti, K.; Spagnuolo, G. Science Mapping Analysis of COVID-19 Articles Published in Dental Journals. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. García-Camba, P.; Marcianes, M.; Morales, M.V. Changes in orthodontics during the COVID-19 pandemic that have come to stay. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2020, 158, e1–e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Suri, S.; Vandersluis, Y.R.; Kochhar, A.S.; Bhasin, R.; Abdallah, M.-N. Clinical orthodontic management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Angle Orthod. 2020, 90, 473–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shea, B.J.; Reeves, B.C.; Wells, G.; Thuku, M.; Hamel, C.; Moran, J.; Moher, D.; Tugwell, P.; Welch, V.; Kristjansson, E.; et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017, 358, j4008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Adel, S.; Zaher, A.; El Harouni, N.; Venugopal, A.; Premjani, P.; Vaid, N. Robotic Applications in Orthodontics: Changing the Face of Contemporary Clinical Care. BioMed Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 9954615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Allareddy, V.; Rengasamy Venugopalan, S.; Nalliah, R.P.; Caplin, J.L.; Lee, M.K.; Allareddy, V. Orthodontics in the era of big data analytics. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2019, 22, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cunha, T.M.A.D.; Barbosa, I.D.S.; Palma, K.K. Orthodontic digital workflow: Devices and clinical applications. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2021, 26, e21spe6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Elshazly, T.; Keilig, L.; Alkabani, Y.; Ghoneima, A.; Abuzayda, M.; Talaat, S.; Bourauel, C. Primary Evaluation of Shape Recovery of Orthodontic Aligners Fabricated from Shape Memory Polymer (A Typodont Study). Dent. J. 2021, 9, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gandedkar, N.H.; Vaid, N.R.; Darendeliler, M.A.; Premjani, P.; Ferguson, D.J. The last decade in orthodontics: A scoping review of the hits, misses and the near misses! Semin. Orthod. 2019, 25, 339–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hassan, R.; Khan, M.A.; Abdullah, A.; Razak, S.A. A Review on Current Trends of Polymers in Orthodontics: BPA-Free and Smart Materials. Polymers 2021, 13, 1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Jedlinski, M.; Mazur, M.; Grocholewicz, K.; Janiszewska-Olszowska, J. 3D Scanners in Orthodontics—Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives—A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Monill-González, A.; Rovira-Calatayud, L.; D’Oliveira, N.G.; Ustrell-Torrent, J.M. Artificial intelligence in orthodontics: Where are we now? A scoping review. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2021, 24, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Panayi, N.; Tsolakis, A.I. In-house 3D designing of lingual and labial customized brackets using composite-made customized bases. Eur. Orthod. Soc. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Park, J.H.; Kim, J.H.; Rogowski, L.; Al Shami, S.; Howell, S.E. Implementation of teledentistry for orthodontic practices. J. World Fed. Orthod. 2021, 10, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Saccomanno, S.; Quinzi, V.; Sarhan, S.; Laganà, D.; Marzo, G. Perspectives of tele-orthodontics in the COVID-19 emergency and as a future tool in daily practice. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2020, 21, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Safari, S.; Mahdian, A.; Motamedian, S.R. Applications of stem cells in orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: Current trends and future perspectives. World J. Stem Cells 2018, 10, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Siddiqui, N.; Chia, M.; Sharif, M.O. Social media and orthodontics: Are our patients scrolling? J. Orthod. 2021, 49, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Sycinska-Dziarnowska, M.; Bielawska-Victorini, H.; Budzyńska, A.; Woźniak, K. The Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Interest in Orthodontic Treatment and Perspectives for the Future. Real-Time Surveillance Using Google Trends. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Thurzo, A.; Urbanová, W.; Novák, B.; Waczulíková, I.; Varga, I. Utilization of a 3D Printed Orthodontic Distalizer for Tooth-Borne Hybrid Treatment in Class II Unilateral Malocclusions. Materials 2022, 15, 1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Thurzo, A.; Kurilová, V.; Varga, I. Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontic Smart Application for Treatment Coaching and Its Impact on Clinical Performance of Patients Monitored with AI-TeleHealth System. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zakrzewski, W.; Dobrzynski, M.; Dobrzynski, W.; Zawadzka-Knefel, A.; Janecki, M.; Kurek, K.; Lubojanski, A.; Szymonowicz, M.; Rybak, Z.; Wiglusz, R. Nanomaterials Application in Orthodontics. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hafner, J.; Lapatki, B.; Paul, O. First Telemetric Smart Orthodontic Bracket for Therapeutic Applications. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE SENSORS, New Delhi, India, 28–31 October 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Venezia, P.; Ronsivalle, V.; Rustico, L.; Barbato, E.; Leonardi, R.; Giudice, A.L. Accuracy of orthodontic models prototyped for clear aligners therapy: A 3D imaging analysis comparing different market segments 3D printing protocols. J. Dent. 2022, 124, 104212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kotantoula, G.; Haisraeli-Shalish, M.; Jerrold, L. Teleorthodontics. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2017, 151, 219–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Estai, M.; Kruger, E.; Tennant, M.; Bunt, S.; Kanagasingam, Y. Challenges in the uptake of telemedicine in dentistry. Rural Remote Health 2016, 16, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hansa, I.; Semaan, S.J.; Vaid, N.R.; Ferguson, D.J. Remote monitoring and “Tele-orthodontics”: Concept, scope and applications. Semin. Orthod. 2018, 24, 470–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yoshida, Y.; Yamaguchi, S.; Kawamoto, Y.; Noborio, H.; Murakami, S.; Sohmura, T. Development of a multi-layered virtual tooth model for the haptic dental training system. Dent. Mater. J. 2011, 30, 1101210093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kwon, H.-B.; Park, Y.-S.; Han, J.-S. Augmented reality in dentistry: A current perspective. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2018, 76, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Giudice, A.L.; Ronsivalle, V.; Rustico, L.; Aboulazm, K.; Isola, G.; Palazzo, G. Evaluation of the accuracy of orthodontic models prototyped with entry-level LCD-based 3D printers: A study using surface-based superimposition and deviation analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 26, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ye, N.; Wu, T.; Dong, T.; Yuan, L.; Fang, B.; Xia, L. Precision of 3D-printed splints with different dental model offsets. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2019, 155, 733–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.