Comparison of the effects of rapid maxillary expansion versus Twin Block appliance on mandibular growth in skeletal Class II patients.

BACKGROUND: This is a retrospective study that compares mandibular growth changes in skeletal Class II patients treated by rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and following fixed appliance with those patients treated by Twin-Block (TB) and following fixed appliance. METHODS: Fourteen patients treated by RME and following fixed appliance were included into the RME group. Fifteen patients treated by Twin-Block and following fixed appliance were included into the TB group. Lateral cephalometric radiographs taken before treatment and immediately after fixed appliance treatment were used to evaluate mandibular growth effects. RESULTS: The starting forms of the patients in the two groups were examined to be of good comparability. The mandibular length increased significantly in both groups as measured by Co-Gn, Go-Gn and Ar-Gn, but the TB group didn't show more mandibular growth than the RME group (P > 0.05). Skeletal changes of the mandible in vertical dimension were different in the two groups. The change in FMA was 0.35° in the RME group, while the change was 2.65° in the TB group (P < 0.001). The change in LAFH was 5.14 mm in the RME group, significantly smaller than the change of 10.19 mm in the TB group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The investigated Phase I treatment with RME followed by Phase II treatment of fixed appliance achieved the same increases in sagittal mandibular growth and facial profile improvements as the Twin-Block therapy. The treatment with RME followed by fixed appliance was better for vertical control, while the treatment with Twin-Block followed by fixed appliance significantly increased the mandibular plane angle.

Comparison of tooth movement and biological response resulting from different force magnitudes combined with osteoperforation in rabbits.

OBJECTIVE: To compare tooth movement rate and histological responses with three different force magnitude designs under osteoperforation in rabbit models. METHODOLOGY: 48 rabbits were divided into three groups: Group A, Group B, and Group C, with traction force of 50 g, 100 g, 150 g, respectively. Osteoperforation was performed at the mesial of the right mandibular first premolar, the left side was not affected. One mini-screw was inserted into bones between two central incisors. Coil springs were fixed to the first premolars and the mini-screw. Tooth movement distance was calculated, and immunohistochemical staining of PCNA, OCN, VEGF, and TGF-ß1 was analyzed. RESULTS: The tooth movement distance on the surgical side was larger than the control side in all groups (P<0.01). No significant intergroup difference was observed for the surgical side in tooth movement distance among the three groups (P>0.05). For the control side, tooth movement distance in Group A was significantly smaller than Groups B and C (P<0.001); no significant difference in tooth movement distance between Group B and Group C was observed (P>0.05). On the tension area of the moving premolar, labeling of PCNA, OCN, VEGF and TGF-ß1 were confirmed in alveolar bone and periodontal ligament in all groups. PCNA, OCN, VEGF and TGF-ß1 on the surgical side was larger than the control side in all groups (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Osteoperforation could accelerate orthodontic tooth movement rate in rabbits. Fast osteoperforation-assisted tooth movement in rabbits was achieve with light 50 g traction.

Comparison of tooth movement and biological response resulting from different force magnitudes combined with osteoperforation in rabbits

Abstract Objective To compare tooth movement rate and histological responses with three different force magnitude designs under osteoperforation in rabbit models. Methodology 48 rabbits were divided into three groups: Group A, Group B, and Group C, with traction force of 50 g, 100 g, 150 g, respectively. Osteoperforation was performed at the mesial of the right mandibular first premolar, the left side was not affected. One mini-screw was inserted into bones between two central incisors. Coil springs were fixed to the first premolars and the mini-screw. Tooth movement distance was calculated, and immunohistochemical staining of PCNA, OCN, VEGF, and TGF-β1 was analyzed. Results The tooth movement distance on the surgical side was larger than the control side in all groups (P<0.01). No significant intergroup difference was observed for the surgical side in tooth movement distance among the three groups (P>0.05). For the control side, tooth movement distance in Group A was significantly smaller than Groups B and C (P<0.001); no significant difference in tooth movement distance between Group B and Group C was observed (P>0.05). On the tension area of the moving premolar, labeling of PCNA, OCN, VEGF and TGF-β1 were confirmed in alveolar bone and periodontal ligament in all groups. PCNA, OCN, VEGF and TGF-β1 on the surgical side was larger than the control side in all groups (P<0.001). Conclusion Osteoperforation could accelerate orthodontic tooth movement rate in rabbits. Fast osteoperforation-assisted tooth movement in rabbits was achieve with light 50 g traction.