Effectiveness of vestibular incision subperiosteal tunnel access technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Vestibular Incision Subperiosteal Tunnel Access (VISTA) root coverage technique has experienced a surge in popularity in recent times. The methodology employed in this study is characterized by its minimally invasive nature, utilizing a single incision. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of the VISTA approach for achieving root coverage. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO and included randomized controlled clinical trials where gingival recessions were managed with VISTA technique or its modifications. Among the total of 416 records, a mere 14 studies were initially deemed eligible for consideration. Ultimately, only eight pieces of research were included in the final analysis. There were six studies that exhibited heterogeneity, while two studies showed homogeneity and were therefore included in the meta-analysis. All of the studies considered in the analysis exhibited a moderate to low risk of bias. The majority of the research included in the analysis focused on selective root coverage outcome indicators, while neglecting to incorporate patient-reported outcome measures and patient experienced outcome measures. The VISTA procedure is commonly acknowledged as the most efficacious approach for managing gingival recession. The current literature provides support for the recommendation of the procedure, with evidence of intermediate certainty. The findings of this systematic review indicates that the available data are restricted due to several methodological limitations observed in the included studies. These limitations include, small sample sizes, selective reporting of outcomes, and very short follow-up periods.

Enamel Renal Gingival Syndrome in an Adolescent.

Enamel renal gingival syndrome is a rare clinical condition characterized by the presence of amelogenesis imperfecta hypoplastic type, gingival fibromatosis and delayed tooth eruption, in addition to nephrocalcinosis with normal blood calcium levels. It is inherited as an autosomal recessive trait caused by mutations in the FAM20A gene located on chromosome 17q24.2. The purpose of this report is to describe a case of enamel renal gingival syndrome and discuss its distinct features and management.

Treatment effects and lip profile changes following premolars extraction treatment vs fixed functional treatment in Class II division 1 malocclusion: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the treatment effects and lip profile changes in skeletal Class II patients subjected to premolars extraction treatment versus fixed functional treatment. METHODS: Forty six subjects fulfilling inclusion criteria were randomly distributed into Group PE (mean age 13.03±1.78 years) and Group FF (mean age 12.80±1.67 years) (n=23 each). Group PE was managed by therapeutic extraction of maxillary first premolars and mandibular second premolars, followed by mini-implant-supported space closure; and Group FF, by fixed functional appliance therapy. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue changes were analyzed using pre and post-treatment lateral cephalograms. Data obtained from this open label study was subjected to blind statistical analysis. RESULTS: Extraction treatment resulted in greater increase of nasolabial angle (NLA: 3.1 [95% CI 2.08, 4.19], p<0.001), significant improvement of upper lip (UL-E line: -2.91 [95% CI -3.54, -2.28], p<0.001, UL-S line: -2.50 [95% CI -2.76, -2.24], p<0.001, UL-SnPog': -2.32 [95% CI -2.90, -1.74], p<0.01) and lower lip position (LL-E line: -0.68 [95% CI -1.36, 0.00], p<0.01, LL-S line: -0.55 [95% CI -1.11, 0.02], p<0.01, and LL-SnPog': -0.64 [95% CI -1.20, -0.07], p<0.01), lip thickness (UL thickness: 2.27 [95% CI 1.79, 2.75], p<0.001; LL thickness: 0.41 [95% CI -0.16, 0.97], p<0.01), upper lip strain (UL strain: -2.68 [95% CI -3.32, -2.04], p<0.001) and soft tissue profile (N'-Sn-Pog': 2.68 [95% CI 1.87, 3.50], p<0.01). No significant difference was observed between the groups regarding skeletal changes in the maxilla and mandible, growth pattern, overjet, overbite, interincisal angle and soft tissue chin position (p>0.05). Premolar extraction treatment demonstrated significant intrusion-retraction of maxillary incisors, better maintenance of maxillary incisor inclination, and significant mandibular molar protraction; whereas functional treatment resulted in retrusive and intrusive effect on maxillary molars, marked proclination of mandibular anterior teeth, and significant extrusion of mandibular molars. Both treatment modalities had similar treatment duration. Implant failure was seen in 7.9% of cases, whereas failure of fixed functional appliance was observed in 9.09% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Premolar extraction therapy is a better treatment modality, compared to fixed functional appliance therapy for Class II patients with moderate skeletal discrepancy, increased overjet, protruded maxillary incisors and protruded lips, as it produces better dentoalveolar response and permits greater improvement of the soft tissue profile and lip relationship.

Treatment effects and lip profile changes following premolars extraction treatment vs fixed functional treatment in Class II division 1 malocclusion: A randomized controlled clinical trial

ABSTRACT Objective: The objective of this two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the treatment effects and lip profile changes in skeletal Class II patients subjected to premolars extraction treatment versus fixed functional treatment. Methods: Forty six subjects fulfilling inclusion criteria were randomly distributed into Group PE (mean age 13.03±1.78 years) and Group FF (mean age 12.80±1.67 years) (n=23 each). Group PE was managed by therapeutic extraction of maxillary first premolars and mandibular second premolars, followed by mini-implant-supported space closure; and Group FF, by fixed functional appliance therapy. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue changes were analyzed using pre and post-treatment lateral cephalograms. Data obtained from this open label study was subjected to blind statistical analysis. Results: Extraction treatment resulted in greater increase of nasolabial angle (NLA: 3.1 [95% CI 2.08, 4.19], p<0.001), significant improvement of upper lip (UL-E line: -2.91 [95% CI -3.54, -2.28], p<0.001, UL-S line: -2.50 [95% CI -2.76, -2.24], p<0.001, UL-SnPog': -2.32 [95% CI -2.90, -1.74], p<0.01) and lower lip position (LL-E line: -0.68 [95% CI -1.36, 0.00], p<0.01, LL-S line: -0.55 [95% CI -1.11, 0.02], p<0.01, and LL-SnPog': -0.64 [95% CI -1.20, -0.07], p<0.01), lip thickness (UL thickness: 2.27 [95% CI 1.79, 2.75], p<0.001; LL thickness: 0.41 [95% CI -0.16, 0.97], p<0.01), upper lip strain (UL strain: -2.68 [95% CI -3.32, -2.04], p<0.001) and soft tissue profile (N'-Sn-Pog': 2.68 [95% CI 1.87, 3.50], p<0.01). No significant difference was observed between the groups regarding skeletal changes in the maxilla and mandible, growth pattern, overjet, overbite, interincisal angle and soft tissue chin position (p>0.05). Premolar extraction treatment demonstrated significant intrusion-retraction of maxillary incisors, better maintenance of maxillary incisor inclination, and significant mandibular molar protraction; whereas functional treatment resulted in retrusive and intrusive effect on maxillary molars, marked proclination of mandibular anterior teeth, and significant extrusion of mandibular molars. Both treatment modalities had similar treatment duration. Implant failure was seen in 7.9% of cases, whereas failure of fixed functional appliance was observed in 9.09% of cases. Conclusions: Premolar extraction therapy is a better treatment modality, compared to fixed functional appliance therapy for Class II patients with moderate skeletal discrepancy, increased overjet, protruded maxillary incisors and protruded lips, as it produces better dentoalveolar response and permits greater improvement of the soft tissue profile and lip relationship.

RESUMO Objetivo: O objetivo desse estudo randomizado controlado paralelo de dois braços foi avaliar os efeitos do tratamento e as mudanças no perfil labial em pacientes esqueléticos Classe II submetidos a tratamento com extração de pré-molares (EP) versus tratamento funcional fixo (FF). Métodos: Quarenta e seis indivíduos que preencheram os critérios de inclusão foram distribuídos aleatoriamente em Grupo EP (idade média 13,03±1,78 anos) e Grupo FF (idade média 12,80±1,67 anos) (n=23 cada). O grupo EP foi tratado com extração dos primeiros pré-molares superiores e segundos pré-molares inferiores, seguida de fechamento do espaço com ancoragem em mini-implantes; e o Grupo FF, com tratamento usando aparelhos funcionais fixos. As alterações esqueléticas, dentárias e de tecidos moles foram analisadas usando cefalogramas laterais pré e pós-tratamento. Os dados obtidos desse estudo aberto foram submetidos a análise estatística cega. Resultados: O tratamento com extrações resultou em maior aumento do ângulo nasolabial (ANL: 3,1 [IC 95% 2,08, 4,19], p<0,001), melhora significativa do lábio superior (Ls-Linha E: -2,91 [IC 95% -3,54, -2,28], p<0,001, Ls-Linha S: -2,50 [IC 95% -2,76, -2,24], p<0,001, Ls-SnPog': -2,32 [IC 95% -2,90, -1,74], p<0,01) e posição do lábio inferior (Li-Linha E: -0,68 [IC 95% -1,36, 0,00], p<0,01, Li-Linha S: -0,55 [IC 95% -1,11, 0,02], p<0,01, e Li-SnPog': -0,64 [IC 95% -1,20, -0,07], p<0,01), espessura dos lábios (espessura Ls: 2,27 [IC 95% 1,79, 2,75], p<0,001; espessura Li: 0,41 [IC 95% -0,16, 0,97], p<0,01), tensão do lábio superior (tensão Ls: -2,68 [IC 95% -3,32, -2,04], p<0,001) e perfil de tecidos moles (N'-Sn-Pog': 2,68 [IC 95% 1,87, 3,50], p<0,01). Nenhuma diferença significativa foi observada entre os grupos quanto às alterações esqueléticas na maxila e mandíbula, padrão de crescimento, sobressaliência, sobremordida, ângulo interincisal e posição dos tecidos moles do mento (p>0,05). O tratamento com extração de pré-molares demonstrou significativa intrusão-retração dos incisivos superiores, melhor manutenção da inclinação dos incisivos superiores e protração significativa dos molares inferiores; enquanto o tratamento funcional resultou em efeito retrusivo e intrusivo nos molares superiores, proclinação acentuada dos dentes anteriores inferiores e extrusão significativa dos molares inferiores. Ambas as modalidades de tratamento tiveram duração de tratamento semelhante. A falha do mini-implante foi observada em 7,9% dos casos, enquanto a falha do aparelho funcional fixo foi observada em 9,09% dos casos. Conclusões: O tratamento com extração de pré-molares é uma modalidade de tratamento melhor do que os aparelhos funcionais fixos para pacientes Classe II com discrepância esquelética moderada, sobressaliência aumentada, incisivos superiores protruídos e lábios protruídos, pois produz melhor resposta dentoalveolar e permite maior melhora do perfil dos tecidos moles e relacionamento labial.

Comparison of long-term skeletal stability following maxillary advancement using rigid external distraction in growing and non-growing patients with cleft lip and palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term skeletal stability following maxillary advancement using Rigid External Distraction (RED) in growing and non-growing patients with Cleft Lip and Palate (CLP). METHODS: Data sources: A systematic literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines from database inception till August 2020 in MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Science Direct, Google Scholar and a manual search in the institutional library. Study eligibility criteria, participants and intervention: All available literature published in English, with a minimum of six human subjects with well-defined age range either 7-14.9 years or 15-30 years, follow up period of a minimum of 12 months assessing the skeletal stability as horizontal change at Point A (Subspinale) following maxillary advancement using a RED device, without the use of rigid internal fixation or bone grafts were included in the study. Study appraisal and synthesis method: The quality assessment of selected articles was done using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The meta-analysis was carried out with Q statistic method, I-squared statistics, fixed-effect model to estimate pooled mean and Begg-Mazumdar bias indicator. RESULTS: Selected nine articles that were qualitatively assessed for relapse rate following maxillary advancement using a RED device, showed consistent and stable results. The meta-analysis found no significant difference in long-term skeletal stability of maxillary advancement by RED device in growing and non-growing patients with CLP [(growing group: Pooled proportion = 0.2927; 95% CI = 0.1534 to 0.4319) (non-growing group: Pooled proportion = 0.23077; 95% CI = 0.09854 to 0.36300)]. LIMITATIONS: No study, as revealed by the search, was available that compared the two groups as defined by the inclusion criteria. Data for the two groups were retrieved from different studies and meta-analysed. CONCLUSION: RED is an effective modality for correction of maxillary hypoplasia secondary to CLP, requiring large maxillary advancement. The technique can be used in young and adult patients with similar long-term results. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020205513.

Treatment Effects and Lip Profile Changes Following Surgical Mandibular Advancement Versus Premolar Extractions in Class II Div 1 Malocclusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: No randomized controlled trial has compared the treatment outcome between surgical mandibular advancement and premolar extractions in class II malocclusion. This 2-arm parallel randomized controlled trial evaluated the treatment effects and lip profile changes in skeletal class II adult patients subjected to bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular advancement and those treated with premolar extractions. Seventy skeletal class II patients were accessed and forty-six subjects who fulfilled inclusion criteria were distributed randomly into Group CG (patients: 23, mean age: 21.28 ±â€Š2.69 years) and Group SG (patients: 23, mean age: 21.15 ±â€Š2.64 years). Group CG was subjected to extraction of maxillary first premolars and mandibular second premolars followed by implant supported space closure and Group SG was managed by surgical mandibular advancement. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue changes were analyzed. The study was single-blinded (statistical analyzer). Groups were closely matched for baseline parameters. In the present trial there was no loss to follow-up. Though overjet and overbite were optimized in both the groups but significant improvement was seen in surgical cases. Group CG demonstrated statistically significant point "A" remodeling, dentoalveolar changes, and increase in nasolabial angle. Group SG exhibited significant sagittal and vertical skeletal improvement and lip position change. Surgical mandibular advancement was found to be a better treatment modality compared to premolars extraction for managing skeletal class II div 1 malocclusion as it permits greater improvement of the profile and skeletal relationship.

Pandemic proofing dental education.

Imparting dental education in times of the current pandemic of COVID-19 has transformed it to a Gordian knot. Dental education must focus on educating dental students for a lifetime of clinical practice. It must inspire them to pursue professional development during this era of rapid advancements and transformation, while being ethical and empathic. This pandemic has denied or limited access to clinical learning avenues for students. Hence, there is a need to adapt to the 'new normal' during and after this pandemic by finding a viable solution. This adverse situation must stimulate the dental educators to prepare a COVID-proof curriculum to tackle any (including the current) pandemic situation and prepare academicians to be ready to face such untoward occurrences in future. This would entail redefining learning outcomes, improvising teaching protocols, and adapting current assessment practices.

Are bleaching and desensitizing agents contraindication for patients seeking orthodontic treatment?

AIM: To compare in vitro the effects on shear bond strength of the application of a dental bleaching and desensitizer agent prior to bonding metallic orthodontic brackets to extracted human teeth. METHOD: Sixty therapeutically extracted human premolars without any visible defects were collected and stored in 0.1% thymol solution at room temperature. All teeth were randomly assigned to one of four groups (each n = 15): group I, teeth were treated with bleaching gel containing 10% carbamide peroxide; group II, teeth were treated with a desensitizer containing 26% potassium oxalate; group III, teeth were treated as in group I followed by application of the desensitizer agent as in group II; and group IV, control group. The teeth from all the four groups were then bonded with 0.018-inch Roth premolar brackets. The shear bond strength was tested in a Hounsfield material testing machine. RESULTS: In group I, 10% carbamide peroxide gel alone did not affect the shear bond strength significantly compared with the unbleached specimens in the control group. The use of the desensitizer agent alone in group II significantly reduced the shear bond strength. In group III, further significant reduction of the mean shear bond strength occurred compared with all the three groups. CONCLUSION: The use of 10% carbamide peroxide prior to bonding orthodontic metallic brackets does not significantly alter shear bond strength. Application of desensitizer agent alone or in combination with bleaching agent significantly lowers the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Application of desensitizer agent alone or in combination with bleaching agent does not lower the shear bond strength below the recommended value for orthodontic bonding procedure. As a result, their use is not a contraindication before orthodontic fixed mechanotherapy.