Caroline F W Sondeijker1, Antoon A Lamberts2, Stefan H Beckmann3, Reinder B Kuitert4, Koen van Westing4, Saskia Persoon2, Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman1. 1. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Section of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen. 2. Knowledge Institute of the Federation of Medical Specialists, Utrecht. 3. Private practice, 's-Gravenhage, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Dentistry, Section of Orthodontics, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a clinical practice guideline on orthodontically induced external apical root resorption (EARR), with evidence-based and, when needed, consensus-based recommendations concerning diagnosis, risk factors, management during treatment, and after-treatment care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument and the Dutch Method for Evidence-Based Guideline Development were used to develop the guideline. Based on a survey of all Dutch orthodontists, we formulated four clinical questions regarding EARR. To address these questions, we conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE and Embase, and we performed a systematic literature review. The quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. After discussing the evidence, a Task Force formulated considerations and recommendations. The drafted guideline was sent for comments to all relevant stakeholders. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. The quality of evidence (GRADE) was rated as low or very low. Only the patient-related risk factors, 'gender' and 'age', showed a moderate quality of evidence. The Task Force formulated 13 final recommendations concerning the detection of EARR, risk factors, EARR management during treatment, and after-treatment care when EARR has occurred. Stakeholder consultation resulted in 51 comments on the drafted guideline. After processing the comments, the final guideline was authorized by the Dutch Association of Orthodontists. The entire process took 3 years. LIMITATIONS: The quality of the available evidence was mainly low, and patient-reported outcome measures were lacking. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: This clinical practice guideline allows clinicians to respond to EARR based on current knowledge, although the recommendations are weak due to low-quality evidence. It may reduce variation between practices and aid in providing patients appropriate information.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a clinical practice guideline on orthodontically induced external apical root resorption (EARR), with evidence-based and, when needed, consensus-based recommendations concerning diagnosis, risk factors, management during treatment, and after-treatment care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument and the Dutch Method for Evidence-Based Guideline Development were used to develop the guideline. Based on a survey of all Dutch orthodontists, we formulated four clinical questions regarding EARR. To address these questions, we conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE and Embase, and we performed a systematic literature review. The quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. After discussing the evidence, a Task Force formulated considerations and recommendations. The drafted guideline was sent for comments to all relevant stakeholders. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. The quality of evidence (GRADE) was rated as low or very low. Only the patient-related risk factors, 'gender' and 'age', showed a moderate quality of evidence. The Task Force formulated 13 final recommendations concerning the detection of EARR, risk factors, EARR management during treatment, and after-treatment care when EARR has occurred. Stakeholder consultation resulted in 51 comments on the drafted guideline. After processing the comments, the final guideline was authorized by the Dutch Association of Orthodontists. The entire process took 3 years. LIMITATIONS: The quality of the available evidence was mainly low, and patient-reported outcome measures were lacking. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: This clinical practice guideline allows clinicians to respond to EARR based on current knowledge, although the recommendations are weak due to low-quality evidence. It may reduce variation between practices and aid in providing patients appropriate information.