Search

This case report outlines the importance of an interdisciplinary approach and a patient centric outcome for the treatment of facial asymmetry resulting from hemifacial microsomia. Different treatment modalities are available to treat asymmetries. However, the best treatment outcome can be achieved only when the treatment plan is individualized for every patient. This report portrays an adult patient with hemifacial microsomia, who had facial asymmetry from the level of supraorbital region with a Class II skeletal base. Orthodontic treatment, along with surgical management, was required to transform the patient into a symmetrical profile, which is esthetically pleasing. A sound knowledge of the various technologies and resources that are available to us and making the best use of it to bring out a drastic change in the patient's life. Combined effort of the orthodontists and oral surgeons are required to manage patient's with hemifacial microsomia that has caused the severe facial asymmetry. Moreover, special attention has to be given to a patient-centric outcome., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2020 Contemporary Clinical Dentistry.)

Skeletal Class II malocclusions with vertical maxillary excess (VME) present with an amalgamation of several problems pertaining to psychological, esthetics, and function. The optimal treatment plan in such cases includes a synchronized orthodontic-surgical approach through superior repositioning and setback of maxilla by means of Le Fort I osteotomy and augmentation genioplasty. This case report describes a multidisciplinary approach in the successful management of a patient with VME to achieve superior esthetics and function., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest.

The current era of orthodontics has evolved from regular dental corrections to achieve the most needed harmony between functional stability and esthetics enhancement of craniofacial structures. The "desire" for attaining this harmony led to the birth of orthognathic surgeries. The orthognathic approach has undergone a paradigm shift through the years, from correcting the skeletal component to addressing the soft tissues, thus optimizing esthetic outcome. This present case report is of a patient with skeletal Class II malocclusions with vertical maxillary excess (VME), managed by multidisciplinary treatment approach. The treatment progressed through presurgical orthodontics with premolar extraction followed by bi-jaw surgery. The outcome resulted in a phenomenal change in the profile by establishing a Class I skeletal base with a stable occlusion., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest.

Aims and Objectives: This clinical study was conducted to compare the interactive self-ligating twin brackets and the standard double width brackets for their efficiency in Rate of Retraction., Materials and Methods: A total of 20 patients with Angle's class I or class II or class III dento-alveolar malocclusions between the age group of 18-25 years were selected. 10 patients in each group both males and females were randomly selected for the study. Ten patients were bonded using conventional brackets (Group I) the other ten patients were bonded using Interactive self-ligating brackets (Group II). The Rate of retraction was quantified using the scanned models. Pretreatment and post treatment models were taken and scanned to measure the amount of Incisor movement and Anchor loss., Results: (1) Interactive Self-ligating brackets showed significant Rate of retraction when compared with conventional brackets on right and left quadrant. (Group I 0.545 ± .205: Group II 0.827 ± .208 P = .013*) (Group I 0.598 ± .160: Group II 0.804 ± .268 P = .071) (2) Interactive self-ligating brackets when compared with conventional brackets had significant amount of incisor movement on right and left quadrant. (Group I 3.51 ± .548: Group II 4.38 ± .1.06 P = .047*) and (Group I 3.66 ± .899: Group II 4.67 ± 1.02 P = .047*) (3) Conventional brackets showed significant Amount of Anchor loss when compared with that of Interactive self-ligating brackets on right and left quadrant. (Group I .948 ± .392: Group II 0.501 ± .229 P = .013*). In the left side (Group I 0.861 ± .464: Group II 0.498 ± .227 P = .060)., Conclusion: The interactive self-ligating brackets show more efficiency in Rate of Retraction, Amount of Incisor movement and Amount of Anchor loss when compared with the conventional brackets.