Treatment stability with bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers after 12 months: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of V-bend bonded retainers (BR) versus vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) regarding their capacity to maintain treatment stability and survival rates after 12 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients finishing orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated into two groups. The BR group received maxillary and mandibular BRs in the lingual surfaces of the anterior teeth. The VFR group received VFRs right after fixed appliances removal. The patients were evaluated at four time-points: at fixed appliances removal (T0), after 3 (T1), 6 (T2) and 12 months (T3). In each time-point digital models were obtained and analysed with the OrthoAnalyzer™ software. Treatment stability based on occlusal outcomes and retainers' survival rates were evaluated. Intergroup comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney U-tests. The Kaplan-Meier survival plot and the log-rank test were employed to assess the retainers' survival. RESULTS: Both BR and VFR groups included 25 patients. The groups were comparable regarding their baseline characteristics. Up to 6 months, both retainers were equally effective; however, after 12 months, BRs were more effective in maintaining the incisors' alignment in the maxilla and the mandible compared to the VFRs. No differences were noticed in the intercanine and intermolar widths, overjet and overbite. There were no differences regarding the retainers' survivability in both arches. CONCLUSIONS: BRs were more effective in maintaining the alignment of the incisors in the maxilla and mandible compared to VFRs after 12 months. Both retainers presented the same survival rates after the same period.

Finite element analysis of two skeletally anchored maxillary molar distalisation methods.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods of maxillary molar distalisation with skeletal anchorage using finite element analysis (FEA). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Comparison and reproducibility of three methods for maxillary digital dental model registration in open bite patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare and assess the reproducibility of 3 methods for registration of maxillary digital dental models in patients with anterior open bite. Settings and sample population Digital dental models of 16 children with an anterior open bite in the mixed dentition were obtained before (T1) and after 12 months of treatment with bonded spurs (T2). METHODS: Landmarks were placed on all T2 models and 3 registration methods (R1, R2 and R3) were independently performed by 2 observers. R1 was based on 10 landmarks placed on posterior teeth. R2 was based on 5 landmarks on the palate (2 anterior, 2 posterior and 1 central). R3 used regions of interest around the 5 palatal landmarks used in R2. The differences between the registration methods were calculated by comparing the mean differences and standard deviations between the corresponding x, y and z coordinates of 6 corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models. Repeated measures analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni tests were used for comparisons (P < .05). The agreement between methods and the intra and interobserver reproducibility were assessed with Bland-Altman tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: Comparisons of R2 with R3 methods showed greater agreement, mean differences ≤0.50 mm for all landmarks, than comparisons of R1 with R2, and R1 with R3, mean differences >0.50 mm for most of the y and z coordinates (P < .05). The R1 and R3 methods presented excellent intra and interobserver reproducibility and R2 method had moderate interobserver reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal assessments of open bite treatment using digital dental models could consider the posterior teeth and/or the palate as references. The R1 and R3 methods showed adequate reproducibility and yield different quantitative results. The choice will depend on the posterior teeth changes and dental models' characteristics.

Dentoskeletal changes in open bite treatment using spurs and posterior build-ups: A randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: This single-center 2-arm parallel randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the dentoskeletal effects of bonded spurs combined with posterior build-ups vs conventional bonded spurs in the treatment of anterior open bite malocclusion in the mixed dentition. METHODS: Patients aged from 7 to 11 years with anterior open bite, recruited at a university orthodontic clinic, were randomly allocated into 2 groups. The experimental group consisted of patients treated with bonded spurs combined with posterior build-ups. The comparison group comprised patients treated with conventional bonded spurs. Lateral headfilms were obtained at pretreatment and after 12 months of treatment. The primary outcome was the change in the overbite. Randomization was performed using the Web site www.randomization.com. Sequentially numbered opaque and sealed envelopes were used for allocation concealment. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Intergroup comparisons were performed using t or Mann-Whitney U tests (P <0.05). Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained. RESULTS: The experimental group included 24 patients (17 female, 7 male; mean age, 8.22 ± 1.06 years) and the comparison group comprised 25 patients (14 female, 11 male; mean age, 8.30 ± 0.99 years). Baseline demographic and cephalometric characteristics were similar between groups. After 12 months, all patients showed improvements. Both groups showed similar improvements of the overbite (MD, 0.00 mm; 95% CI, -0.92 to 0.91), similar slight decreases of the gonial (MD, 0.02°; 95% CI, -1.11 to 1.15) and mandibular plane (MD, 0.15°; 95% CI, -0.64 to 0.93) angles, and similar mandibular molar extrusion (MD, 0.14 mm; 95% CI, -0.27 to 0.56). The experimental group showed significantly smaller extrusion of the maxillary first molar than the comparison group (MD, -0.70 mm; 95% CI, -0.92 to -0.49). The other dentoskeletal variables showed similar changes without statistically significant intergroup differences. No serious harm was observed other than plaque accumulation around the spurs. CONCLUSIONS: Similar overbite increases and dentoskeletal changes were observed in both groups after 12 months of treatment. Although the experimental group showed significantly smaller extrusion of the maxillary molars, no greater counterclockwise rotation of the mandible than the comparison group was observed. REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier NCT03702881). PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published. FUNDING: This trial was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES), Finance Code 001; and by grants: no. 2017/06440-3, no. 2018/05238-9 and no. 2018/24003-2, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).

Dental arch changes after open bite treatment with spurs associated with posterior build-ups in the mixed dentition: A randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: This single-center, 2-arm, parallel-group randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the dimensional dental arch changes after anterior open bite (AOB) treatment with bonded spurs associated with posterior build-ups vs bonded spurs alone. METHODS: Patients aged between 7 and 11 years with AOB were recruited at a university clinic and randomly allocated into 2 groups. The experimental group was treated with bonded spurs associated with posterior build-ups (SBU) and the comparison group with bonded spurs alone (S). Digital dental models were obtained at pretreatment and after 12 months of treatment. The overbite change was the primary outcome. The randomization list was obtained at the Web site www.randomization.com. Allocation concealment involved sequentially numbered, sealed, and opaque envelopes. The outcomes' assessment was blinded. Analysis of covariance was used for intergroup comparisons (P <0.05). Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (mean age, 8.22 ± 1.06 years; 7 males and 17 females) were included in the SBU group, and 25 patients (mean age, 8.30 ± 0.99 years; 11 males and 14 females) were included in the comparison group. After a 12-month follow-up, the overbite increased approximately 4 mm in both groups (MD, -0.11 mm; 95% CI, -1.03 to 0.80). Means of anterior dentoalveolar vertical development ranged from 2.24 mm (S group) to 2.49 mm (SBU group) and from 1.31 mm (SBU group) to 1.55 mm (S group) for the maxilla (MD, -0.24 mm; 95% CI, -0.91 to 0.44) and mandible (MD, 0.29 mm; 95% CI, -0.39 to 0.96), respectively. The maxillary intermolar distance decreased in the SBU group and increased in the S group (MD, -0.48 mm; 95% CI, -0.92 to -0.03). The mandibular intermolar distance increased in the SBU group and decreased in the comparison group (MD, 0.26 mm; 95% CI, 0.004-0.52). Plaque accumulation around the spurs was observed in some patients. CONCLUSIONS: Both protocols demonstrated similar improvements in the AOB with similar effects on the dental arches. The SBU group showed a slight decrease in the maxillary intermolar distance and a slight increase in the mandibular intermolar distance, whereas opposite changes were observed for the S group. REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier NCT03702881). PROTOCOL: The study protocol was not published. FUNDING: This work was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) grants nos. 2017/06440-3, 2018/05238-9, and 2018/24003-2; and financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brasil (CAPES), Finance Code 001.

Class II malocclusion treatment with a customized dual force distalizer.

Intraoral distalizers associated with skeletal anchorage provide the major benefit of promoting molar distalization with minimum anchorage loss and patient cooperation. This case report presents the treatment of a 17-year-old female with Class II Division 2 malocclusion, maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion, mild mandibular retrusion, increased overjet, deepbite, and lip incompetence. The treatment plan involved initial maxillary molar distalization with a customized version of the skeletally anchored dual force distalizer (DFD). The customized DFD used smaller mini-implants and included a fixed anterior biteplane. The device applied simultaneous forces from the buccal and palatal sides directly to the molars using nickel-titanium coil springs and allowed orthodontic mechanics in the mandibular teeth. An overcorrected Class I molar relationship was obtained after 6 months. After the distalization phase, retraction mechanics began with retraction loops and using a modified transpalatal bar reinforced with the mini-implants as anchorage. Moreover, the finishing phase was performed with multiloop edgewise archwires and intermaxillary elastics to enable an individualized control of each tooth. Total treatment time comprised 2 years 4 months, and significant improvements regarding the facial and occlusal perspectives were noticed. Similarly, these favorable changes remained stable during the 2-year follow-up period. The customized version of the skeletally anchored DFD followed by fixed appliances showed effectiveness and stability in Class II malocclusion treatment.

Oral health-related quality of life, adaptation/discomfort during open bite treatment with spurs: complementary analysis from a randomized clinical trial.

This single-center trial aimed to longitudinally compare the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQOL), adaptation and discomfort during anterior open bite (AOB) treatment with lingual spurs and build-ups (SBU) versus spurs only (S) approaches. Children (7-11 years) with AOB were randomly allocated into two treatment groups (SBU or S). The Child Perception Questionnaire (CPQ8-10) was applied 1 and 12 months after installation of the appliances. Questionnaires evaluating functional adaptation and discomfort during the first month of treatment were also applied. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used in these questionnaires. Generalized mixed models were used for analyzing OHRQOL and discomfort data. Generalized linear models were used to assess adaptation outcomes (α = 0.05). The SBU group included 24 patients (7 males and 17 females; mean age 8.2 years) and the S group included 25 patients (11 males and 14 females; mean age 8.3 years). Regardless of the treatment type, overall OHRQOL scores at 12 months were 0.69 times those recorded at 1 month after the appliances installation (i.e., ~ 31% reduction; exp (ß) = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.88). A significant interaction between treatment and time was detected for the 'functional limitations' domain. For this domain, a significant improvement from the first to the twelfth month was observed in the S group (P < 0.001). Patients in both treatment groups showed similar and easy adaptation to the appliances. Independent of the type of treatment, tongue-related discomfort decreased over time. One week and one month after the appliance's delivery, the discomfort scores were 0.19 (i.e., ~ 81% reduction; exp (ß) = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.28; P < 0.001) and 0.02 (i.e., ~ 98% reduction; exp (ß) = 0.02; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.07; P < 0.001) times, respectively, those issued immediately after the installation of the appliances. Regardless of treatment type; overall OHRQOL improved from the first to the twelfth month of AOB treatment. The functional limitations score decreased in the S group. Children showed easy adaptation, and their discomfort decreased 1 week after the installation of the appliances.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03702881, date of registration: October 11, 2018.

Psychological and financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic during the first stages of the pandemic: Brazilian orthodontists´ perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Brazil faced a catastrophic situation in the coronavirus pandemic. Due to the high risk of contamination and spread of COVID-19, dentist have been attending only urgency and emergency services in Brazil at the beginning of the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This research aimed to evaluate the psychological and financial impacts caused by the coronavirus pandemic in Brazilian orthodontists. METHODS: This population-based cross-sectional study collected demographic data and mental health measurements from 404 orthodontists. Depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress were evaluated through Brazilian versions of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (9-PHQ), the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale and Mini-Tracking (GAD), the 7-item Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the 22-item Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), respectively. The demographic data of the sample was described using descriptive statistics. The data was analyzed according to sex, professional status, and economic income. Comparisons were performed using Chi-square tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Kruskal-Wallis followed by post-hoc tests. RESULTS: Females, graduate students, and lower incomes subgroups showed higher levels of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress. Most orthodontists showed moderate to extreme financial and professional concerns during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The coronavirus pandemic negatively affected the psychological health and increased the financial concerns of the Brazilian orthodontists, mainly female, graduate students, and with income below 10k participants.

Three-dimensional changes after maxillary molar distalization with a miniscrew-anchored cantilever.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the changes after maxillary molar distalization in Class II malocclusion using the miniscrew-anchored cantilever with an extension arm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample included 20 patients (9 male, 11 female; mean age 13.21 ± 1.54 years) with Class II malocclusion, treated with the miniscrew-anchored cantilever. Lateral cephalograms and dental models obtained before (T1) and after molar distalization (T2) were evaluated using Dolphin software and 3D Slicer. Superimposition of digital dental models using regions of interest on the palate was performed to evaluate three-dimensional displacement of maxillary teeth. Intragroup change comparisons were performed using dependent t-test and Wilcoxon test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The maxillary first molars were distalized to overcorrected Class I. The mean distalization time was 0.43 ± 0.13 years. Cephalometric analysis demonstrated significant distal movement of the maxillary first premolar (-1.21 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.45, -1.96) and maxillary first (-3.38 mm, 95% CI: -2.88, -3.87) and second molars (-2.12 mm, 95% CI: -1.53, -2.71). Distal movements increased progressively from the incisors to the molars. The first molar showed small intrusion (-0.72 mm, 95% CI: 0.49, -1.34). In the digital model analysis, the first and second molars showed a crown distal rotation of 19.31° ± 5.71° and 10.17° ± 3.84°, respectively. The increase in maxillary intermolar distance, evaluated at the mesiobuccal cusps, was 2.63 ± 1.56 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The miniscrew-anchored cantilever was effective for maxillary molar distalization. Sagittal, lateral, and vertical movements were observed for all maxillary teeth. Distal movement was progressively greater from anterior to posterior teeth.

Three-dimensional dentoalveolar changes in open bite treatment in mixed dentition, spurs/posterior build-ups versus spurs alone: 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial.

This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the three-dimensional dentoalveolar maxillary changes after anterior open bite treatment with bonded spurs and build-ups versus bonded spurs alone. Patients from 7 to 11 years of age with anterior open bite were randomly allocated into two groups. Bonded spurs and posterior build-ups were used in the experimental group and only bonded spurs were used in the comparison group. The randomization sequence was generated at www.randomization.com . Opaque, sealed and sequentially numbered envelopes were part of the allocation concealment. Digital dental models were acquired before (T1) and after 12 months of treatment (T2) and de-identified for analysis purposes. Three-dimensional changes of maxillary permanent incisors and first molars were evaluated by means of T1 and T2 dental model superimposition. Landmark-based registration on the posterior teeth and registration on the palate using regions of interest were performed. T or Mann-Whitney U tests were used for intergroup comparisons (P < 0.05). Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Twenty-four children (17 girls and 7 boys) were included in the experimental group (mean age 8.22 ± 1.06 years) and 25 children (14 girls and 11 boys) were included in the comparison group (mean age 8.30 ± 0.99 years). After 12 months of treatment, inferior displacements of maxillary incisors were similar in the experimental (1.55-2.92 mm) and comparison (1.40-2.65 mm) groups. Inferior displacement of the maxillary molars was also similar in both groups (MD: - 0.13 mm; 95% CI - 0.38, 0.12). The experimental and comparison groups showed medial and lateral displacements of the permanent first molars, respectively (MD, - 0.31 mm; 95% CI - 0.51, - 0.11). Lingual inclination of the permanent first molars were observed in the experimental group and buccal inclination in the comparison group (MD, - 2.16°; 95% CI - 3.72, - 0.60). Similar three-dimensional displacements of maxillary central and lateral incisors, and inferior displacements of maxillary permanent first molars were observed in both groups. Bonded spurs associated with posterior build-ups demonstrated some medial displacement and lingual inclination of the maxillary permanent first molars while opposite changes were noticed in the comparison group.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03702881, date of registration: October 11, 2018.

Sagittal, rotational and transverse changes with three intraoral distalization force systems: Jones jig, distal jet and first class.

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.

Class II malocclusion treatment changes with the Jones jig, Distal jet and First Class appliances.

Objective Maxillary molar distalization with intraoral distalizer appliances is a non-extraction orthodontic treatment used to correct molar relationship in patients with Class II malocclusion presenting maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and minor skeletal discrepancies. This study compares the changes caused by three distalizers with different force systems. Methodology 71 patients, divided into three groups, were included. The Jones jig group (JJG, n=30; 16 male, 14 female, 13.17 years mean age) was treated with the Jones jig for 0.8 years. The Distal jet group (DJG, n=25; 8 male, 17 female, 12.57 years mean age) was treated with the Distal jet for 1.06 years. The First Class group (FCG, n=16; 6 male, 10 female, 12.84 years mean age) was treated with the First Class for 0.69 years. Intergroup treatment changes were compared using one-way ANOVA, followed by post-hoc Tukey's tests. Results Intergroup comparisons showed significantly greater maxillary incisor protrusion in DJG than in FCG (2.56±2.24 mm vs. 0.74±1.39mm, p=0.015). The maxillary first premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (14.65±6.31º, 8.43±3.99º, 0.97±3.16º; p<0.001). They also showed greater mesialization in JJG than FCG (3.76±1.46 mm vs. 2.27±1.47 mm, p=0.010), and greater extrusion in DJG compared to JJG (0.90±0.77 mm vs 0.11±0.60 mm, p=0.004). The maxillary second premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation and mesialization in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (12.77±5.78º, 3.20±3.94º, -2.12±3.71º and 3.87±1.34 mm, 2.25±1.40 mm, 1.24±1.26 mm, respectively; p<0.001). DJG showed smaller distal angulation of maxillary first molars (-2.14±5.09º vs. -7.73±4.28º and -6.05±3.76º, for the JJG and FCG, respectively; p<0.001) and greater maxillary second molars extrusion (1.17±1.41 mm vs -0.02±1.16 mm and 0.16±1.40 mm, for the JJG and FCG, respectively; p=0.003). Overjet change was significantly larger in DJG compared to FCG (1.79±1.67 mm vs 0.68±0.84; p=0.046). Treatment time was smaller in FCG (0.69±0.22 years vs 0.81±0.33 years and 1.06±0.42 years, comparing it with the JJG and DJG, respectively; p=0.005). Conclusion The three appliances corrected the Class II molar relationship by dentoalveolar changes. The Distal jet produced smaller molar distal angulation than the Jones jig and First Class. The First Class appliance showed less anchorage loss, greater percentage of distalization and shorter treatment time than the Jones jig and Distal jet.

3D Slicer Craniomaxillofacial Modules Support Patient-Specific Decision-Making for Personalized Healthcare in Dental Research.

The biggest challenge to improve the diagnosis and therapies of Craniomaxillofacial conditions is to translate algorithms and software developments towards the creation of holistic patient models. A complete picture of the individual patient for treatment planning and personalized healthcare requires a compilation of clinician-friendly algorithms to provide minimally invasive diagnostic techniques with multimodal image integration and analysis. We describe here the implementation of the open-source Craniomaxillofacial module of the 3D Slicer software, as well as its clinical applications. This paper proposes data management approaches for multisource data extraction, registration, visualization, and quantification. These applications integrate medical images with clinical and biological data analytics, user studies, and other heterogeneous data.

Class II malocclusion treatment effects with Jones Jig and Distal Jet followed by fixed appliances.

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 II subjects. 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 group showed 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.

Psychological and financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic during the first stages of the pandemic: Brazilian orthodontists´ perspective

ABSTRACT Introduction: Brazil faced a catastrophic situation in the coronavirus pandemic. Due to the high risk of contamination and spread of COVID-19, dentist have been attending only urgency and emergency services in Brazil at the beginning of the pandemic. Objective: This research aimed to evaluate the psychological and financial impacts caused by the coronavirus pandemic in Brazilian orthodontists. Methods: This population-based cross-sectional study collected demographic data and mental health measurements from 404 orthodontists. Depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress were evaluated through Brazilian versions of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (9-PHQ), the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale and Mini-Tracking (GAD), the 7-item Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the 22-item Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), respectively. The demographic data of the sample was described using descriptive statistics. The data was analyzed according to sex, professional status, and economic income. Comparisons were performed using Chi-square tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Kruskal-Wallis followed by post-hoc tests. Results: Females, graduate students, and lower incomes subgroups showed higher levels of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress. Most orthodontists showed moderate to extreme financial and professional concerns during the pandemic. Conclusion: The coronavirus pandemic negatively affected the psychological health and increased the financial concerns of the Brazilian orthodontists, mainly female, graduate students, and with income below 10k participants.

RESUMO Introdução: O Brasil enfrentou uma situação catastrófica durante a pandemia do coronavírus. Devido ao alto risco de contaminação e disseminação do vírus da COVID-19, os cirurgiões-dentistas passaram a realizar apenas atendimentos de urgência ou emergência no início da pandemia. Objetivo: O presente estudo teve como objetivo avaliar o impacto financeiro e psicológico causado pela pandemia do coronavírus nos ortodontistas brasileiros. Métodos: Este estudo transversal de base populacional coletou os dados demográficos e o impacto da pandemia em 404 ortodontistas. Depressão, ansiedade, insônia e angústia foram avaliadas, respectivamente, por meio da versão em português do Questionário de Saúde do Paciente (PHQ-9), do módulo de transtorno de ansiedade generalizada (GAD) do Mini-Tracking (GAD/Mini-Tracking), do Índice de Severidade de Insônia (ISI) e o do Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R). As características demográficas da amostra foram apresentadas por meio de estatística descritiva. Os dados foram analisados de acordo com o sexo, situação profissional e renda econômica. As comparações foram realizadas utilizando os testes de Qui-quadrado, Mann-Whitney U e Kruskal-Wallis, seguidos de testes post-hoc (p<0,05). Resultados: Mulheres, estudantes de pós-graduação e profissionais com menores rendas apresentaram níveis mais altos de depressão, ansiedade, insônia e angústia. A maioria dos ortodontistas mostrou preocupação financeira e profissional moderada a extrema durante a pandemia. Conclusão: A pandemia do coronavírus afetou negativamente a saúde psicológica dos ortodontistas brasileiros e aumentou as preocupações financeiras desses profissionais. As mulheres, os estudantes de pós-graduação e os participantes com renda mensal menor que R$10 mil foram os grupos mais afetados.

Class II malocclusion treatment changes with the Jones jig, Distal jet and First Class appliances

Abstract Objective Maxillary molar distalization with intraoral distalizer appliances is a non-extraction orthodontic treatment used to correct molar relationship in patients with Class II malocclusion presenting maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and minor skeletal discrepancies. This study compares the changes caused by three distalizers with different force systems. Methodology 71 patients, divided into three groups, were included. The Jones jig group (JJG, n=30; 16 male, 14 female, 13.17 years mean age) was treated with the Jones jig for 0.8 years. The Distal jet group (DJG, n=25; 8 male, 17 female, 12.57 years mean age) was treated with the Distal jet for 1.06 years. The First Class group (FCG, n=16; 6 male, 10 female, 12.84 years mean age) was treated with the First Class for 0.69 years. Intergroup treatment changes were compared using one-way ANOVA, followed by post-hoc Tukey's tests. Results Intergroup comparisons showed significantly greater maxillary incisor protrusion in DJG than in FCG (2.56±2.24 mm vs. 0.74±1.39mm, p=0.015). The maxillary first premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (14.65±6.31º, 8.43±3.99º, 0.97±3.16º; p<0.001). They also showed greater mesialization in JJG than FCG (3.76±1.46 mm vs. 2.27±1.47 mm, p=0.010), and greater extrusion in DJG compared to JJG (0.90±0.77 mm vs 0.11±0.60 mm, p=0.004). The maxillary second premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation and mesialization in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (12.77±5.78º, 3.20±3.94º, -2.12±3.71º and 3.87±1.34 mm, 2.25±1.40 mm, 1.24±1.26 mm, respectively; p<0.001). DJG showed smaller distal angulation of maxillary first molars (-2.14±5.09º vs. -7.73±4.28º and -6.05±3.76º, for the JJG and FCG, respectively; p<0.001) and greater maxillary second molars extrusion (1.17±1.41 mm vs -0.02±1.16 mm and 0.16±1.40 mm, for the JJG and FCG, respectively; p=0.003). Overjet change was significantly larger in DJG compared to FCG (1.79±1.67 mm vs 0.68±0.84; p=0.046). Treatment time was smaller in FCG (0.69±0.22 years vs 0.81±0.33 years and 1.06±0.42 years, comparing it with the JJG and DJG, respectively; p=0.005). Conclusion The three appliances corrected the Class II molar relationship by dentoalveolar changes. The Distal jet produced smaller molar distal angulation than the Jones jig and First Class. The First Class appliance showed less anchorage loss, greater percentage of distalization and shorter treatment time than the Jones jig and Distal jet.

Cantilever ancorado a mini implante para distalização de molares superiores / Cantilever with mini-screw for maxillary molar

Dentre as diversas formas de tratar a má oclusão de Classe II, a distalização de molares superiores com aparelhos intrabucais fixos é uma alternativa conservadora e com mínima necessidade de colaboração do paciente. O cantilever para distalização utilizado no presente caso clínico, confeccionado no Departamento de Ortodontia da Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, é ancorado a um mini-implante e tem o objetivo de ser um dispositivo simplificado, de fácil confecção, instalação e ativação. O objetivo deste relato de caso é apresentar as características deste distalizador e sua utilização em um paciente com má oclusão de Classe II, divisão 1. A relação molar de Classe I foi obtida no período de aproximadamente 5 meses, acompanhada de movimento distal dos pré-molares e sem provocar protrusão anterior.(AU)

Maxillary molar distalization with fixed intraoral appliances is a conservative alternative that requires minimal need of patient collaboration. The cantilever for molar distalization used in the present case report was made in the Department of Orthodontics of Bauru Dental School. It is anchored to a mini-screw and aims to be a simplified device, easy to make, to install and to activate. The objective of this case report is to present the characteristics of the distalizer and its use in a patient with Class II division 1 malocclusion. The Class I molar relationship was efficiently achieved after a period of 5 months, followed by premolars distal movement and overjet maintenance. (AU)