Treatment outcome comparison of Invisalign vs fixed appliance treatment in first premolar extraction patients.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we compared the dentitional changes after Invisalign and conventional orthodontic treatment with 4 first premolar extractions. METHODS: This retrospective study included 57 patients whose orthodontic treatment involved the extraction of 4 first premolars because of bialveolar protrusion. A total of 27 patients were treated with Invisalign (mean age, 25.5 ± 5.2 years) and 30 patients with the fixed appliance (mean age, 24.4 ± 5.8 years). The angular and linear changes of the maxillary and mandibular central incisors, second premolars, first molars, and second molars were measured from the recordings on the basis of the lateral cephalograms taken before and after treatment. The angular changes of the canines and second premolars were measured using panoramic radiographs. RESULTS: The overbite and interincisal angle increased significantly in the Invisalign group compared with in the conventional fixed appliance group (P <0.05). The maxillary central incisors showed increased lingual tipping in the Invisalign group (P <0.05), whereas there was no statistically significant difference in the angular change of the mandibular incisors between groups (P >0.05). The maxillary first and second molars showed mesial tipping in the Invisalign group (P <0.05). The maxillary second premolars, first and second molars, and the mandibular second molars showed mesial movement in the Invisalign group (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The Invisalign group showed more statistically significant lingual tipping of the maxillary central incisors, distal tipping of the maxillary canines, and mesial tipping of the maxillary first and second molars after maximum retraction of the anterior teeth compared with the fixed appliance group.

Esthetic orthodontic treatment with a double J retractor and temporary anchorage devices.

This clinical article reports an esthetic treatment option for managing a Class II malocclusion in an adult. The patient, a woman aged 24 years 2 months, had crowding and a convex profile. She was treated with maxillary first premolar extractions, a double J retractor, and temporary skeletal anchorage devices in the maxillary arch. Posttreatment records after 2 years showed excellent results with good occlusion and long-term stability.

Parents' satisfaction with their child's orthodontic care: a comparison of orthodontists and pediatric dentists.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the quality of orthodontic care between orthodontists and pediatric dentists when measured by parental satisfaction. METHODS: Six pediatric dentists and 5 orthodontists participated in the study. Quality of care was measured using the peer assessment rating (PAR) occlusal index, treatment duration, and parental satisfaction. Parental satisfaction was evaluated using a 25-item questionnaire measuring 3 dimensions: (1) treatment process; (2) psychosocial effects of treatment; and (3) treatment outcomes. The questionnaire items were scored on a scale of "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." RESULTS: At baseline, no differences were seen in the gender, starting dentition, and permanent teeth extractions of patients treated by the orthodontist and pediatric dentists. Statistically significant differences were seen in patients': (1) pretreatment age; (2) race; (3) primary teeth extractions; (4) treatment stages; and (5) pre-PAR scores. No statistically significant differences between orthodontists and pediatric dentists were observed regarding overall parental satisfaction or the dimensions of satisfaction. These results did not change after controlling for potential confounding factors such as patient's age, gender, starting dentition, treatment stage, extraction recommendations, pre-PAR score, treatment duration, and percentage PAR reduction. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of orthodontic care, when measured by parental satisfaction, was similar between orthodontists and pediatric dentists. This indicates that, as far as parents are concerned, pediatric dentists performed orthodontic treatment to the same high standard as orthodontists.

Locating the center of resistance of maxillary anterior teeth retracted by Double J Retractor with palatal miniscrews.

OBJECTIVE: To locate the center of resistance of six maxillary anterior teeth retracted by the Double J Retractor (DJR) and to find the optimal position of palatal miniscrews. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The three-dimensional (3D) finite element model included 12 teeth with two first premolars extracted. The DJR was modeled as a 3D beam element. The miniscrew was sagittally placed between the second premolar and the first molar, and the vertical position of the miniscrew was established at five conditions: 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 mm apically from the cervical line of the first molar. The length of the retraction lever arm was determined according to the position of the miniscrew, for the direction of retraction force to be parallel to the maxillary occlusal plane. The 3D finite element method was used to determine the location of the center of resistance of the maxillary anterior teeth by visualizing the tooth displacement and stress distribution. RESULTS: As the miniscrew was located apically, the stress spread out to the root apex and the adjacent alveolar bone. At the 8-mm level of miniscrews, a bodily-like parallel retraction could be obtained with DJR. CONCLUSION: In this study, the center of resistance of the six maxillary anterior teeth retracted by DJR with palatal miniscrews was estimated to be 12.2 mm apically from the incisal edge of the central incisor.