Search

Background: The growing integration of digital technologies in orthodontics is shifting the orthodontic diagnosis and recordkeeping paradigm, replacing conventional plaster models with intraoral scanning and 3D photography. This study investigated the impact of orthodontic plaster models on orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning decisions by orthodontists. Methods: Thirty-three orthodontists assessed six patients' records with different malocclusion cases. Each case was assessed twice by each orthodontist evaluating a case: the first evaluation with digital records without diagnostic casts and the second evaluation with the added diagnostic orthodontic plaster model. Diagnostic and treatment plan decisions for each malocclusion case were compared with and without the aid of the diagnostic orthodontic plaster models to assess the plaster model's impact on the treatment plan's soundness. Results: Statistically insignificant differences were found for the diagnoses and treatment plans with or without the aid of orthodontic plaster models. Intraclass correlation coefficients revealed agreement among orthodontists for both evaluated situations (0.685; p < 0.0001). Plaster models were found to significantly influence orthodontists' decisions about the need for surgical intervention (p = 0.026), but they did not significantly impact the overall malocclusion diagnostic classification nor the decision regarding the extent of treatment, whether comprehensive or limited (p = 0.146) and extraction versus non-extraction approaches (p = 0.266). Conclusions: These findings support the idea that digital record alternatives may be viable for orthodontic recordkeeping purposes. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the presence or absence of orthodontic plaster models does not significantly impact the orthodontic diagnosis or treatment planning process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study used seven different adhesive removal systems to evaluate and compare enamel surface integrity, heat generation, and time consumed during residual cement removal after de-bracketing. The sample size was 140 human premolars. Teeth were cleaned, mounted, and prepared for orthodontic bracket bonding. Brackets were then debonded using bracket-removing pliers. Teeth were randomly assigned to seven groups based on the residual cement removal system: Group 1: Stainbuster bur, Group 2: Renew diamond bur #129, Group 3: Renew carbide bur, Group 4: OneGloss Complete system, Group 5: Sof-Lex system, Group 6: Enhance Finishing and PoGo Polishing complete kit, and Group 7: Renew friction grip points. The enamel surface was evaluated for roughness before bracketing and after residual cement removal using surface profilometry. The time taken for cement removal was recorded using a digital timer, and heat generation was measured using a laser thermometer before and after cement removal. One-way ANOVA compared the pre- and post-values for enamel surface roughness, temperature, and time consumed. When comparing the difference between the post- and pre-finishing roughness using one-way ANOVA, the Renew diamond bur produced the roughest enamel surface post-removal with a mean of 4.716 μm, while the Sof-Lex recorded the lowest at 0.760 μm. The highest mean temperature was recorded with the Stainbuster bur at 5.545 °C, and the lowest temperature was recorded with the Enhance bur at 2.260 °C. The time for cement removal was the shortest with the Enhance bur at 12.2 s, whereas the time was the longest with the Renew diamond bur at 30.4 s. In conclusion, all the residual cement removal systems used in this clinically simulated study were not able to restore the original enamel surface smoothness. However, the 3M Sof-Lex produced the lowest enamel roughness but with more time consumption and heat generation. When selecting the best residual cement removal system to be used, clinicians should weigh the merits and demerits of each system based on the clinical judgement of the operator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]