Camouflage treatment for skeletal Class III patient with facial asymmetry using customized bracket based on CAD/CAM virtual orthodontic system.

When considering camouflage orthodontic treatment for Class III malocclusion with skeletal facial asymmetry, it is crucial to preserve the favorable compensated posterior occlusion. Once the inclination of the compensated occlusion is changed during orthodontic treatment, unstable occlusion, such as crossbite or scissor bite may occur. A 23-year-old female patient had anterior spacing with Class III malocclusion and a mandibular asymmetry. A nonsurgical approach was adopted. The treatment objectives were to establish a Class I molar relationship with compensated inclination of the posterior dentition and to correct the midline deviation. To achieve these goals, the computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) orthodontic system plus customized brackets was applied, and miniscrews were used to distalize the left mandibular dentition for midline correction. The results suggested that the CAD/CAM-based customized brackets can be efficiently used in camouflage treatment to achieve a correct final occlusion.

How Is the Created Alveolar Space Finally Restored After Maxillary Anterior Segmental Distraction Osteogenesis?

OBJECTIVE: Maxillary anterior segmental distraction osteogenesis (MASDO) for cleft and palate patients is the alternative treatment option to correct malocclusion with maxillary arch deficiency and severe crowding. After MASDO, prosthetic considerations are crucial for patients with cleft lip and palate because it is related to facial esthetics and occlusal function. The objectives of this study were to investigate the final restoration type for created alveolar space by MASDO. METHODS: Thirteen patients with cleft lip and palate who underwent MASDO and orthodontic treatment from the years 2000 to 2010 in Yonsei University were examined. Final restorations are classified as dental implants, conventional prosthesis, and orthodontic space closure. The relationship between the distracted areas and final restoration type was investigated. The authors evaluated lateral cephalograms obtained at predistraction osteogenesis (pre-DO; T1), postdistraction osteogenesis (post-DO; T2), and debond (T3), and measured changes from T1 to T2 and from T2 to T3. RESULTS: There was no significant difference of final restoration percentage of dental implants, conventional prosthesis, and space closure with orthodontic treatment. However, dental implants and conventional prostheses were applied more frequently in the posterior area and in the anterior area, respectively. The relapse rate was observed as 36.7% and 22.4% in the values of N-A distance and ANB angulation in T2-T3 stage. CONCLUSION: The MASDO site should be decided, based on final restoration goal. Among the created alveolar spaces, implants were applied mainly to the posterior site and the conventional prostheses were mostly restored to the anterior site. For space closure by orthodontic approach, the area could be both anterior or posterior.

Debonding force and shear bond strength of an array of CAD/CAM-based customized orthodontic brackets, placed by indirect bonding- An In Vitro study.

Based on three-dimensional scanning and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) techniques, customized bracket systems are increasingly used. However, data remain limited regarding customized bracket design, characteristics, and stability. This study was undertaken to evaluate the design, bond strength, and residual adhesives of four different CAD/CAM customized brackets that were attached to human tooth specimens by indirect bonding. Thirty extracted human upper premolars were divided into five groups: Group 1, preadjusted self-ligating labial metal bracket; Group 2, lingual self-ligating metal injection molding customized bracket; Group 3, gold-casted lingual customized bracket; Group 4, labial self-ligating milled customized bracket; Group 5, labial customized resin base bracket. Except in Group 1, premolar specimens were scanned via model scanner, and the images were sent to each manufacturing company to fabricate customized brackets and transfer trays/jigs. Debonding force (DF; N) was measured by Instron universal testing machine and shear bond strength (SBS; MPa) was calculated via dividing DF by bonding area. Adhesive remnants were analyzed via stereo microscopic images. Group 2 (196.90±82.75 N) exhibited significantly higher DF than Group 1 (62.77±12.65 N); other groups exhibited similar DFs, compared with Group 1. No customized bracket groups exhibited significant differences in SBS, relative to Group 1 (6.73±1.36 MPa). However, SBS in Group 5 (11.46±7.22 MPa) was significantly higher than in Group 3 (3.58±2.14 MPa). Group 3 had significantly lower ARI scores than other groups (P<0.05). Customized brackets exhibited large deviations in DF and SBS; all customized bracket systems exhibited DF that was equivalent or superior to that of preadjusted brackets, even when placed by indirect bonding.