This month, the Journal honors the authors of 4 award-winning articles published in 2013. You can read about these awards—the Dewel, Watson, Turpin, and CDABO awards—in the Journal , on our Web site, and in the AAO Bulletin , among other places. At the same time, I can’t help but mention some of the great research studies published this past year that were not selected for our Journal awards but still deserve special recognition.

“Bullying among Jordanian schoolchildren, its effects on school performance, and the contribution of general physical and dentofacial features,” by Zaid B. Al-Bitar et al (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:872-8).

The aims of this study were to investigate the experience of bullying in a representative sample of Jordanian schoolchildren in Amman, to look at its effects on school attendance and the perception of academic performance, and to assess the contribution of general physical and dentofacial features of this phenomenon. This was a cross-sectional study in which a representative sample of sixth-grade students (11-12 years of age) from randomly selected schools was asked to complete questionnaires distributed in the classroom in the presence of the researchers. The final sample size was 920 children (470 girls, 450 boys).

The prevalence of bullying was 47% (n = 433); significantly more boys reported being bullied than girls ( P <0.001). The percentage of students subjected to name-calling was 40.9%. A significantly greater proportion of victims of bullying reported being truant from school and disliking school more than those who were not bullied. Teeth were the number 1 feature targeted for bullying, followed by strength and weight. The 3 most commonly reported dentofacial features targeted by bullies were spacing between the teeth or missing teeth, shape or color of the teeth, and prominent maxillary anterior teeth. This study demonstrated a high prevalence of bullying in Jordanian schools, with many children experiencing bullying because of their dental or facial appearance.

“Lingual retainers bonded without liquid resin: A 5-year follow-up study,” by Alexander T. H. Tang et al (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143;101-4 ).

The release of BPA when bonding lingual retainers after orthodontic treatment should be studied to better determine its potential risks to patients, clinicians, and staff. Of course, manufacturers should be encouraged to develop new BPA-free materials to offer as treatment options. The aim of this in-vivo study was to evaluate the effect of excluding the liquid resin component of a composite bonding product based on bisphenol A diglycidylmethacrylate when used to bond lingual retainers. The material comprised 40 metal multistrand retainers bonded onto the lingual surfaces of maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth. Transbond LR composite paste and liquid resin (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were used to bond the retainers in the control group (20 retainers). The same bonding material was used in the test group (20 retainers), but the liquid resin component was excluded. The duration (in months) of retainer survival was analyzed by using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and the log rank test.

Fifty percent of the retainers in the control group and 60% of those in the test group had no bond failures during the 5-year observation period; the difference was not statistically significant. Bond failures were recorded in 13.6% of the bonded tooth surfaces in the control group and in 14.9% in the test group; the difference was not statistically significant. On average, the retainers stayed intact in the control and test groups for 36 and 32 months, respectively. The median survival times of the control and test groups were 43 months and more than 47 months, respectively. Neither the survival analysis nor the 95% confidence intervals (24-49 months in the control group, 24-40 months in the test group) suggested any statistically significant difference between the groups. Metal lingual retainers can be successfully bonded without liquid resin and serve the patient equally as well clinically as retainers bonded with the conventional bonding technique.

“Survival and success rates of autotransplanted premolars: A prospective study of the protocol for developing teeth,” by Pawel Plakwicz et al (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:229-37).

Clinicians in more than a few countries look upon the autotransplantation of a vital permanent tooth as less successful than the use of an implant to replace a missing tooth. The lack of adequately trained oral and maxillofacial surgeons is often given as a reason. The aim of this prospective clinical trial was to examine the predictability of the protocol for premolar transplantation when used by an inexperienced surgeon. Additional objectives were to examine the hard and soft tissues, to compare the findings with control premolars, and also to record the patients’ opinions of the treatment provided.

The sample comprised 23 consecutively transplanted developing premolars in 19 patients. Their mean age at surgery was 12 years 8 months (range, 9 years 10 months-17 years). The mean observation time was 35 months (range, 6-78 months). Plaque accumulation, pocket depth, gingival recession, mobility, and pulp sensitivity were recorded for the transplanted and the control teeth. Standardized radiographs were used to examine hard tissues and crown-to-root ratios. Questionnaires were used to register each patient’s opinion about the treatment and its outcome. The survival rate was 100%, and the success rate was 91.3%. No significant differences were recorded between the transplanted and control teeth. The patients’ perceptions of the surgical management and the treatment outcome were favorable. The protocol for autotransplantation of developing premolars in growing patients was successfully adopted, regardless of lack of previous experience with this type of treatment.

I believe that these 3 studies will impact the way we practice orthodontics for some time to come. What do you think?