Incorrect measurements and misleading conclusions in the article “Comparison of the efficacy of tooth alignment among lingual and labial brackets: an in vitro study”

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To reproduce the methods and results of the study by Alobeid et al. (2018) in which the efficacy of tooth alignment using conventional labial and lingual orthodontic bracket systems was assessed. MATERIALS/METHODS: We used the identical experimental protocol and tested (i) regular twin bracket (GAC-Twin [Dentsply]) and lingual twin bracket systems (Incognito [3M]), (ii) together with NiTi 0.014” wires (RMO), and (iii) a simulated malocclusion with a displaced maxillary central incisor in the x-axis (2 mm gingivally) and in the z-axis (2 mm labially). RESULTS: The method described by Alobeid et al. (2018) is not reproducible, and cannot be used to assess the efficacy of tooth alignment in labial or lingual orthodontic treatment. Major flaws concern the anteroposterior return of the Thermaloy-NiTi wire ligated with stainless steel ligatures. The reproduced experimental setting showed that a deflected Thermaloy-NiTi wire DOES NOT move back at all to its initial stage (= 0 per cent correction) because of friction and binding (see supplemented video), neither with the tested labial nor with the lingual brackets. Furthermore, an overcorrection of up to 138 per cent, which the authors indicate for some labial bracket-wire combinations and which deserves the characterization “irreal”, stresses the inappropriateness of the method of measurement.Further flaws include: a) incorrect interpretation of the measurement results, where a tooth tripping around (overcorrection) is interpreted as a better outcome than a perfect 100 per cent correction; b) using a statistical test in an inappropriate and misleading way; c) uncritical copying of text passages from older publications to describe the method, which do not correspond to this experimental protocol and lead to calculation errors; d) wrong citations; e)differences in table and bar graph values of the same variable; f) using a lingual mushroom shaped 0.013” Thermaloy-NiTi wire which does not exist; g) drawing uncritical conclusions of so called "clinical relevance" from a very limited in vitro testing. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical recommendations based on in vitro measurements using the Orthodontic Measurement and Simulation System (OMSS) should be read with caution.