Search

Growth modifying appliances are generally accustomed devices to treatment jaw discrepancy in growing patients. Their outcome strongly depends on proper identifying the site of the discrepancy i.e. whether the lower or upper jaw and whether related to skeletal or dental structures. Lateral cephalometric radio graph (LCR) is an essential diagnostic aids for patient with sagittal dysplasia to aid in treatment planning and monitor the progress of treatment. The aim of this retrospective audit is to investigate the effectiveness of the use of LCRs in the treatment planning of myofunctional and/or orthopedic appliances and to estimate if these radio graphs had been used properly. The standard was set so that at least 90% of the cases should be based on cephalometric analysis before taking decision regarding treatment planning. Records were collected for 51 patients who were treated by myofunctional/orthopedic appliances in the orthodontic department at the College of Dentistry/Baghdad University in 2019.These records had been checked for LCR involvement, accuracy of cephalometric tracing and the impact of the result of tracing on treatment planning. Only 37% of cases got benefit from LCR on treatment planning while 31% of cases had no LCR in their records as well as 32% had LCR but with no any effect on treatment decision. Recommendations: Emphasizing on the concern of taking and analyzing cephalometric radio graphs whenever there is a growth modifying appliance. Adequate knowledge of cephalometric tracing should be available before setting the treatment plan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To compare orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) and patient perception of pain during orthodontic treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. Subjects and methods Eligible participants aged 12 years or above were allocated to treatment with the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. OIIRR was assessed radiographically using standardized periapical radiographs before and after 9 months from the start of treatment. Patient perception of pain was assessed using a validated patient questionnaire at 6 months from the start of treatment. Parametric tests (t -test) and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher's exact tests and Kruskal–Wallis test) assessed differences between the groups (P < 0.05). The correlation between severity of OIIRR and abnormal root morphology, history of dental trauma, and pain during treatment was assessed. Results Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the severity of the OIIRR nor patient perception of pain between the two study groups (P = 0.115 and P = 0.08 respectively). The correlation between the severity of OIIRR and abnormal root morphology or history of dental trauma was not statistically significant (P = 0.086 and P = 0.313). Moreover, there was no significant correlation between the severity of OIIRR and pain during treatment (R = 0.045, P = 0.617). Limitations It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation, and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. Conclusions The effect of bracket slot size on the severity of OIIRR and patient perception of pain are not significant. Trial registration The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To compare treatment duration between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot systems and determine factors influencing treatment duration. Subjects and methods Eligible participants aged 12 years or over were allocated to the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. Outcome measures included duration of: 1. overall treatment, 2. levelling and alignment, 3. working and finishing, and 4. appointment numbers and other treatment-related factors. Parametric tests (independent samples t -test) and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher's exact tests and Mann–Whitney U -test) assessed differences between groups. A multiple linear regression analysis identified factors influencing treatment duration (P < 0.05). Results Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P > 0.05). The mean duration of treatment for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot groups was 29.3 and 31.2 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in terms of treatment duration, duration of the key stages of treatment, and number of appointments (P > 0.05). The regression analysis revealed 33.0 per cent of variance in treatment duration was explained by age at bonding, Class II division 2 malocclusion, number of failed appointments, number of emergency appointments, and transfer to another clinician. There were no adverse events. Limitations It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. Conclusions There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in treatment duration between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. Increasing patient age, Class II division 2 malocclusion, number of failed and emergency appointments, and multi-operator treatment all increase orthodontic treatment duration. Registration The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338. Protocol The protocol was published at DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-389. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To compare the quality of orthodontic treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. Subjects and methods Eligible participants aged 12 years or over were allocated to the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. Outcome measures included: 1. ABO cast-radiograph evaluation (CR-EVAL), 2. peer assessment rating (PAR) scores, 3. incisor inclination, and 4. patient perception using the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need aesthetic component (IOTN AC) and three validated questionnaires before, during and after treatment. Parametric tests [independent samples t -test and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)] and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher's exact tests and Mann–Whitney U -test) assessed differences between groups (P < 0.05). Results Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P > 0.05). The mean total ABO CR-EVAL scores were 34.7 and 34.5; mean percentage PAR score reduction 74.1 per cent and 77.1 per cent; mean change for maxillary incisor inclination 2.9 degrees and 1.6 degrees and for mandibular incisor inclination 2.7 degrees and 1.4 degrees for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch groups, respectively. Improvement in patient perception of aesthetics after treatment was statistically significant for both groups (P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups for ABO CR-EVAL, percentage PAR score reduction, incisor inclination, and patient perception of treatment (P > 0.05). No adverse events were observed during treatment. Limitations It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. Conclusions There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in the quality of occlusal outcomes, incisor inclination and patient perception of treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. Registration The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338. Protocol The protocol was published at DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-389. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/objective: To assess the validity and reliability of a series of three questionnaires for the quantification of patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. Subjects and methods: The study was carried out at the University of Dundee with content and face validity being assessed using proformas. Initially ten experts (Orthodontic Specialists) assessed content validity with 11 professionals (seven Orthodontic Specialists and four Postgraduates) and 20 patients assessing face validity. Content validity was determined according to the values of item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale-level CVI (S-CVI/Ave), while specially designed feedback forms were used for face validation. Internal consistency determined the reliability of the questionnaires according to the value of Cronbach alpha correlation coefficient test. The three questionnaires were then modified according to the recommendations of professionals and patients with seven experts reassessing content validity and ten newly selected patients assessing face validity. Results: The first round of content validity revealed that around half of the items in the questionnaires were not valid. Therefore, the questionnaires were not valid as a whole (S-CVI/Ave = 0.60). After modifying the questionnaires and removing the non-valid items, the new versions of the Pretreatment, Orthodontic Experience, and Post-treatment Questionnaires showed high levels of face validity, content validity (S-CVI/Ave: 0.99, 0.97, and 0.99, respectively) and good levels of internal consistency (α = 0.86, 0.78, and 0.88, respectively). Limitation: The patient sample was collected from a single university clinic and from one city within the UK and this could affect the generalizability of the results. Conclusion: Three content valid and reliable questionnaires have been developed and validated for the evaluation of patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. Implications: Unlike other tools that assess oral health-related quality of life, this series of three questionnaires assess the perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment before, during and after treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) is widely used in orthodontic appliances such as clear aligners and retainers, there is limited experimental data assessing its performance under functional stresses, such as those encountered during dental movements and palatal expansion. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the ability of PETG thermoplastic material to withstand deformation under functional and expansion forces, specifically within the context of orthodontic applications. Subjects and Methods: To estimate the firmness of the screw within the appliance, a universal Instron testing machine was used to record the forces released by each activation of the expander within the upper part of 10 clear modified twin blocks (MTBs) made from PETG and compare it with that released by 10 conventional twin blocks (CTBs). On the other hand, to determine the ability of the thermoplastic appliance to withstand the deformation during functional forces, a three-point bending test was used to investigate the response of both appliances under static loading. Independent samples t -test was used to compare the differences between groups. Results: Both CTB and MTB groups follow the same pattern of increase and decrease in the amount of mean load with the CTB group line showing a considerably higher amount of mean load reaching the peak (334.5 N) at turn 25 of screw activation while the peak of mean load for MTB group was equal to 252.6 N at turn 23. There was a statistically significant difference between the CTB and MTB groups in the three-point bending test ( p =0.001). However, both appliances did not deform at the required force. Conclusions: The MTB can withstand both required expansion and functional load without deformation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06116500., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2025 Anosh A. Haik and Yassir A. Yassir. The Scientific World Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a novel orthodontic primer that incorporated graphite fluoride (GF) and Bioactive glass (BAG) and to investigate its cell viability, bonding strength, and enamel damage, as well as its antibacterial and remineralization properties., Materials and Methods: Nine groups were prepared by adding different concentrations of GF (1, 2, and 4 wt.%) and BAG (1, 3, and 5 wt.%) to Transbond™ XT orthodontic primer. The prepared primers were compared to the control primer in terms of cell viability, shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), enamel damage index (EDI), and antibacterial test. Then, the groups with better antibacterial properties (GFBAG 1-1, GFBAG 4-1, GFBAG 4-3, GFBAG 4-5) were evaluated for the remineralization properties., Results: All the prepared orthodontic primers with different concentrations of GF/BAG revealed acceptable cell viability levels, with comparable SBS and ARI values to the control primer (p>0.05). Simultaneously, the EDI was reduced, while the antibacterial properties were significantly enhanced when compared to the control group (p0.05). The result of remineralization properties revealed that the selected groups had significantly higher remineralization ability than the control group; this was most pronounced in the GFBAG 4-3 group., Conclusions: All the prepared GF/BAG orthodontic primers are biologically safe with adequate SBS, ARI, and EDI values for clinical application with enhanced antibacterial properties. The GFBAG 4-3 experimental primer reveals the best antibacterial and remineralization properties which require further in-vitro and in-vivo investigations as a preventive measure of white spot lesions.

Background: White spot lesions (WSLs) are the most common complications of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of calcium fluoride nanoparticles-containing orthodontic primer (nCaF2-primer) in preventing the incidence of WSLs during orthodontic treatment., Trial Design: Single-centre, double-blinded, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial., Methods: The sample involved 31 orthodontic patients (≥12 years). Participants were recruited using a simple nonstratified randomization. Data collection, measurements, and analysis were performed blindly. Outcome measures included comparing the effect of nCaF2-primer with control primer (Transbond) regarding the degree of demineralization (DIAGNOdent pen), Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) bacterial counting [real-time polymerase chain reaction device (PCR)], and WSLs incidence (pre- and post-operative photographs). The measurements were performed before bonding, 1, 3, and 6 months after bonding and after appliance removal. A two-way repeated measure analysis of variance test (for DIAGNOdent pen scores), and Wilcoxon signed-rank test (for the difference between bacterial counting and WSLs incidence) were used (P < 0.05)., Results: Thirty-one patients were recruited and randomized (mean age 17.9 ± 2.45 years). For the primary outcome (DIAGNOdent pen scores) and secondary outcome of S. mutans counting: 31 patients (310 teeth for each group) were included in scoring at T1 and T3, and 30 patients (300 teeth) were included at T6. While for the photographic scores, 26 patients were included after bracket bonding. The demineralization scores showed significant differences at all-time intervals within the 6 months after bracket bonding which was more noticeable after the first month. There was a significant difference in bacterial count between the two primer groups at the T1 only. Regarding photographic scores, there were no significant differences in the WSLs incidence between the two primers groups after brackets removal. No harm was detected during treatment, except the usual pain/gingival irritation., Conclusions: nCaF2-primer effectively decreased demineralization scores within the 6 months after bracket bonding. Moreover, it significantly reduced S. mutans colonization after the first month. However, the tested primer did not have an extra advantage in preventing WSLs development at the clinical level after appliance removal., Trial Registration: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 8 May 2021 (registration number: NCT04994314)., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)