Search

Background.: With advancements in orthodontic technology, treatment durations have shortened, often concluding at earlier ages. This shift prompts scrutiny of contemporary retention and post-treatment protocols. The study aimed to assess current professional preferences, compare them against patient age and treatment duration, and investigate the potential impacts of reduced treatment times on professional protocols, particularly when treatment concludes before pubertal growth. Methods.: A questionnaire comprising 12 multiple-choice questions focused on active treatment and retention phases was developed using an online survey platform. It was distributed to licensed orthodontists engaged in patient treatment. Bivariate analysis was conducted using ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test, with pairwise comparisons facilitated by the Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner method. Results.: Of 743 respondents, representing a 32% response rate, approximately 70% reported initiating treatment with fixed appliances in pre-pubertal patients. The most prevalent treatment combination involved commencing treatment during early permanent dentition and lasting between 12 to 24 months, resulting in treatment completion before full growth maturation. No discernible individualization was observed in retention protocols or post-retention follow-ups. Traditional retainer prescription post-orthodontic therapy was unanimous among respondents. Notably, experienced orthodontists tended to prefer regular patient visits for follow-up, while less experienced counterparts discharged patients after 12 months. Conclusion.: Contemporary orthodontic treatments are characterized by shorter durations, yet orthodontists have not adopted retention and post-treatment follow-up practices accordingly. There is a pressing need for evidence-based guidelines to develop protocols tailored to the shorter treatment durations and the increasing prevalence of younger patients completing treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare two methods of maxillary molar distalisation with skeletal anchorage using finite element analysis (FEA). Two digitised models were created: the miniscrew-anchored distaliser, which consisted of a distalisation method anchored in a buccal miniscrew between the first molar and second premolar (Model 1), and the miniscrew-anchored palatal appliance, which consisted of a distalisation method anchored in a miniscrew on the anterior region of the palate (Model 2). FEA was used to simulate both methods, assessing teeth displacements and stress concentration. The miniscrew-anchored distaliser showed greater buccal than distal displacement of the first molar, while the opposite was observed in the miniscrew-anchored palatal appliance. The second molar responded similarly in the transverse and anteroposterior perspectives with both appliances. Greater displacements were observed at crown level than in apical regions. Greater stress concentration was observed at the buccal and cervical regions of the crown in the miniscrew-anchored distaliser and the palatal and cervical regions in the palatal appliance. The stress progressively spread in the buccal side of the alveolar bone for the miniscrew-anchored distaliser and in the palatal root and alveolar bone for the palatal appliance. FEA assumes that both appliances would promote maxillary molar distalisation. A skeletally anchored palatal distalisation force seems to provide a greater molar bodily movement with less undesirable effects. Greater stress is expected at the crown and cervical regions during distalisation, and the stress concentration in the roots and alveolar bone depends directly on the region the force was applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This prospective randomized clinical trial aimed at analyzing the skeletal effects of this modified acrylic splint palatal expander (MASPE) used for maxillary transversal deficiency treatment in mixed dentition. Methods: Eligibility criteria included maxillary transverse deficiencies in children between 7 and 10 years of age. Eighteen individuals who met the inclusion criteria and reached the end of treatment were evaluated (mean age of 8.66 years old) and randomly assigned to be submitted to rapid maxillary expansion with either the MASPE experimental device or a well-known tooth-borne expander (control group). CBCT scans taken before expansion and at the end of the retention period were evaluated. The palatal area was calculated, and the length of expansion was measured. Treatment changes were analyzed using paired t-tests, whereas independent t-tests were used to compare the two groups. Results: There were statistically significant (p<0.05) increases in maxillary width at the suture level in both groups, with a substantial increase in the palatal area. The group differences were not significant. Conclusions: MASPE showed good efficiency and skeletal effects but no superiority over the control group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the long‐term stability of Class II correction with the Pendulum or Jones jig followed by fixed appliances. Settings and sample population: Group 1 comprised 20 Class II malocclusion patients with a mean initial age of 13.97 years (SD = 1.57), treated with Pendulum and fixed appliances for a mean period of 4.72 years (SD = 0.98), and mean long‐term post‐treatment evaluation of 4.72 years (SD = 0.97). Group 2 consisted of 18 Class II patients with a mean initial age of 13.19 years (SD = 1.26), treated with Jones jig and fixed appliances for a mean period of 3.96 years (SD = 0.92). Mean long‐term post‐treatment time was 5.50 years (SD = 1.57). Methods: Lateral cephalograms were evaluated at three stages: initial (T1), final (T2) and long‐term post‐treatment (T3). Intragroup comparisons were performed with repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test and intergroup comparisons with independent t test. Results: Many treatment changes were observed in both groups. From the long‐term post‐treatment periods, there was stability for most of the variables. Maxillary second molars and mandibular first molars extruded in the Jones jig group and slightly intruded in the Pendulum appliance group. The nasolabial angle decreased in the Pendulum group and increased in the Jones jig group. Conclusion: The correction of a Class II malocclusion was shown to be stable with similar long‐term post‐treatment results with Pendulum or Jones jig followed by fixed orthodontic appliances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Clínica de Ortodontia Dental Press is the property of Dental Press International and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: To compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes in Class II malocclusion patients treated with Jones Jig and Distal Jet distalizers followed by fixed appliances.Materials and Methods: The experimental groups comprised 45 Class II malocclusion subjects divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jones Jig, and group 2 consisted of 20 patients treated with the Distal Jet. Group 3 comprised 19 untreated Class IIsubjects. Cephalograms were analyzed before and after orthodontic treatment. For intergroup comparisons, one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey tests were performed.Results: During treatment, the experimental groups exhibited significant increases in occlusal plane inclination and maxillary second molar mesial tipping. Additionally, the molar relationship improved and overjet decreased significantly in the experimental groups. The Jones Jig groupshowed greater mandibular incisor proclination and greater overbite reduction than the control group. No significant intergroup differences in nasolabial angle changes were found.Conclusions: Treatment protocols using the Jones Jig and Distal Jet followed by fixed appliances were effective in correcting Class II malocclusion by means of dentoalveolar changes without significant skeletal and soft tissue changes. The experimental groups showed occlusal plane clockwise rotation and greater mesial tipping of maxillary second molars when compared to the untreated group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aimed to describe the orthodontic treatment of an adult patient with the following characteristics: asymmetric Class II malocclusion, left subdivision, mandibular midline shifted to the left, mild mandibular anterior crowding, excessive overbite, 4.mm overjet, and a brachycephalic facial pattern. A 31.year.old male patient, treated with fixed preadjusted appliance with Roth prescription, with leveling and alignment NiTi archwire sequence. To correct the asymmetric Class II malocclusion, midline shift as well the overjet and overbite, intermaxillary elastics and accentuated and reversed stainless steel archwires were used, respectively. The posttreatment results showed a Class I molar relationship, as well the overjet and overbite correction. These results could be achieved due to a correct treatment plan and so to the patient cooperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the amount of buccal and lingual supporting bone tissue of 60 upper central incisors and the relationship with their inclination. Materials and Methods: Thirty healthy adult patients with no previous orthodontic treatment were evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography. Cross-sectional views were analyzed to check the amount of the bone tissue on the cervical (cervical buccal thickness/CBT; lingual/CLT), middle (middle buccal thickness/MBT; lingual/MLT), and apical regions (apical buccal thickness/ABT; lingual/ALT). The Pearson correlation, linear regression, and analysis of variance tests were used (P < .05). Results: The values of ABT of both teeth (11, right upper central incisor; 21, left upper central incisor) were significantly increased with the increase in the angle between the axis of the upper central incisor and the palatal plane (1/PP) (tooth 11 P = .034; tooth 21 P = .009), yet without a strong linear correlation. At the buccal and lingual surfaces, the mean apical supporting bone tissue was significantly greater than the other areas, and the middle region significantly greater than the cervical (P < .001). Conclusions: For both surfaces (buccal and lingual), the amount of bone tissue in the apical region was significantly higher than the middle and cervical regions, and the middle region was significantly higher than the cervical region. In relation to the upper central incisor's inclination, the higher the 1/PP the higher was ABT. However, the coefficient values for both teeth were low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Clínica de Ortodontia Dental Press is the property of Dental Press International and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Dental Press de Ortodontia e Ortopedia Facial is the property of Dental Press International and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: To compare the maxillary dentoalveolar changes of patients treated with three distalization force systems: Jones Jig, Distal Jet and First Class appliances, using digitized models., Material and Methods: The retrospective sample comprised 118 digitized models of 59 patients with Class II malocclusion divided into three groups: Group 1 consisted of 22 patients treated with the Jones Jig appliance; Group 2 consisted of 20 patients treated with the Distal Jet, and Group 3 comprised 17 patients treated with the First Class appliance. Pretreatment and post-distalization plaster models of all patients were digitized and evaluated with OrthoAnalyzerTM software. The pretreatment and post-distalization variables regarding sagittal, rotational and transverse changes were compared by the One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests, depending on normality., Results: All appliances presented similar amounts of distalization. The Distal Jet appliance promoted significantly smaller mesial displacement of premolars and greater expansion of posterior teeth. The First Class presented the smallest rotation of the maxillary molars and treatment time., Conclusions: The distalizers were effective in correcting Class II molar relationship, however, a palatal force seems to provide fewer undesirable effects. Additionally, the degree of rotation and expansion was associated with the side of force application. Key words: Malocclusion, Angle Class II, Orthodontics, Corrective, Distalizers., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors declare that no conflict of interest exist., (Copyright: © 2021 Medicina Oral S.L.)