Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Orthodontics”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

MicroRNAs in Oral Bio-Fluids as Predictive Biomarkers of Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review was designed to assess scientific evidence of the association of microRNA expression during orthodontic tooth movement through various time points. A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA checklist. A search strategy was developed in electronic databases including Med Line, Scopus, EBSCO Host and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global until June 2025. Eligibility criteria included studies that investigated microRNA expression in saliva/GCF during orthodontic treatment. The risk of bias of the included studies was analysed using the QUADAS-2 and RoB-2 tools. The search retrieved 2800 records, of which nine studies were selected. Minor variations in GCF collection were noted, while stimulated saliva was collected in one study. RT-PCR and the Fluro meter accounted for the majority of miRNA estimation. Thirteen miRNAs were identified as target biomarkers for OTM regulation. Despite the high risk of bias, the evidence from the current systematic review indicates that microRNAs can be considered as potential biomarkers of orthodontic tooth movement in oral biofluids. Trial Registration: Prospero ID-CRD420251153064.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence in treatment prediction for skeletal Class III malocclusion: A systematic review.

In skeletal Class III patients, treatment options range from orthodontics to orthognathic surgery. Choosing the optimal approach requires a comprehensive clinical evaluation, which may be supported by AI tools. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of AI models in predicting the need for orthognathic surgery and in identifying predictors influencing treatment decisions. A PRISMA-guided electronic database search (PubMed, Web of Science; 2009-2024; English/French) was performed to identify studies using machine learning (ML) or deep learning (DL) on cephalometric and clinical data. After screening and assessment for eligibility, 15 studies were critically appraised. Model performance was summarized using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC). ML algorithms (particularly Random Forest and XGBoost) and DL models (ResNet-based convolutional neural networks (CNNs)) achieved high accuracy for predicting surgical need. Frequently selected predictors included Wits appraisal, ANB angle, the maxillomandibular ratio (Mx/Md), overjet, and the divergence of the lower gonial angle. AI methods show promise for assisting treatment decisions in Class III malocclusion, with Random Forest and XGBoost performing well on tabular cephalometric data and CNNs on imaging. Larger, multicentre datasets and external validation are needed to improve reliability, address bias, and support clinical implementation.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Platelet Rich Plasma in Reducing Oronasal Fistula and Scar Width in Primary Cleft Lip and Palate Repair-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This review aimed to investigate platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) efficiency in reducing oronasal fistula during primary cleft lip and palate repair. An extensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Global Index Medics (WHO), PubMed Scopus, Cochrane Central, Proquest was performed up to march 2025. Eligible studies included prospective RCTs and non-randomized controlled trials in human subjects. Patients aged 6-24 months undergoing primary cleft lip and palate repair were involved. Interventions involved intraoperative use of PRP/PRF compared with controls without PRP/PRF. The primary outcome was occurrence of oronasal fistula; secondary outcomes were scar width, wound infection and postoperative bleeding with wound dehiscence. Study selection followed PRISMA guidelines, and the risk of bias was determined with the ROB-2 and ROBINS-I method of assessment. Seven studies met the required criterion and were qualitatively synthesized. Evidence suggested that PRP/PRF application was associated with a lower incidence of oronasal fistula and reduced scar width compared with controls. Additional benefits included accelerated wound healing and faster recovery. The use of autologous PRP was also reported to decrease the need for further surgical interventions. However, the certainty of evidence was limited due to small sample sizes and methodological heterogeneity. PRP and PRF show promising benefits in cleft lip and palate repair, particularly decreased fistula formation and reduced scar width. Nevertheless, current evidence is of low to very low certainty. Larger, well-designed randomized trials are required to validate the results obtained. Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD420251032421.

Humans↗