Posterior crossbite corrections in the early mixed dentition with quad helix or rapid maxillary expander: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral posterior crossbite is a common malocclusion, and early treatment is recommended to enable normal growth. There are several possibilities regarding choice of appliances used for correcting this malocclusion; however, when treatment is financed by public funds the decision needs to be based not only on the effects but also on the effect in relation to the costs. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing quad helix (QH) and rapid maxillary expanders (RME; hyrax-type) in children in the early mixed dentition. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-two patients were randomized to treatment with either QH or RME, at two different centres. Data were collected from the patient's medical records regarding success rate, number of visits, total treatment time, emergency visits, and so forth, together with answers from patient questionnaires concerning absence from school and use of analgesics. A cost-effectiveness analysis with both an intention-to-treat (ITT) and a per-protocol approach was performed, as well as a deterministic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The success rate, one year after the completion of the expansion, was equal between groups according to the ITT approach. From a healthcare perspective, the mean cost difference between RME and QH was €32.05 in favour of QH (P = 0.583; NS). From a societal perspective, the mean cost difference was €32.61 in favour of QH (P = 0.742; NS). The total appliance cost alone was higher in the RME group €202.67 resp. €155.58 in the QH group (P = 0.001). The probability of RME having a higher cost was 71% from a healthcare perspective and 62.7% from a societal perspective. The total treatment time was 97 days longer in the QH group. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, when using a higher valuation of the children's educational loss, the QH becomes €58 more costly than the RME. There was a statistically significant difference in chair time and visits between centres (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The difference in costs between RME and QH is not statistically significant, however, there is a slightly higher probability that RME is more expensive than QH with a mean cost of an additional €32 per patient from a healthcare perspective. Different work procedures at different centres indicate that logistics around the patient's treatment is a more important aspect than appliance used to decrease the number of visits and save chair time and thereby also costs.

Three-dimensional assessment of virtual clear aligner attachment removal: A prospective clinical study.

INTRODUCTION: In digital dentistry, virtual attachment removal (VAR) optimizes clear aligner therapy by enhancing efficiency for refinements and enabling prefabricated retainer production through the removal of attachments from a digital scan before the clinical removal of clear aligner attachments. This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of VAR in the maxillary arch. METHODS: A total of 110 teeth were analyzed from a sample of 54 maxillary scans from 25 subjects. Models with attachments were virtually debonded using Meshmixer (Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif) and superimposed over the control group in MeshLab. Vector Analysis Module (Canfield Scientific, Fairfield, NJ) was used to calculate and analyze 3-dimensional Euclidean distances on the buccal surfaces between the superimposed models. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 23.0, IBM, Armonk, NY). The Shapiro-Wilkes (α = 0.05) test determined a nonnormal distribution of results. The Kruskal-Wallis (α = 0.05) was used to determine differences between different tooth types and the number of attachments. RESULTS: The VAR protocol showed no statistical differences in the root mean square between different tooth segments with an overall tendency for inadequate attachment removal. No difference between the groups was found regarding the number of attachments when used as a main factor. CONCLUSIONS: The VAR technique is precise enough for the fabrication of retainers from printed dental models in a clinical setting and is not affected by the number of attachments on the tooth.

Measuring Maxillary Posterior Tooth Movement: A Model Assessment using Palatal and Dental Superimposition.

Since the introduction of Invisalign by Align Technology, Inc. in 1999, questions and debates have persisted regarding the precision of Invisalign (clear aligner) therapy, particularly when compared to the use of traditional fixed appliances. This becomes particularly significant in cases involving anteroposterior, vertical, and transverse corrections, where precise comparisons are of paramount importance. To address these inquiries, this study introduces a meticulously devised protocol, placing a primary emphasis on digitally superimposing the movement of maxillary posterior teeth to facilitate accurate analysis. The sample included 25 patients who had completed their first series of Invisalign (clear) aligners. Four maxillary digital models (pre-treatment, post-treatment, ClinCheck-initial, and final models) were digitally superimposed using the palate rugae and dentitions as stable references. A software combination was used for model superimposition and tooth segmentation. Transformation matrices then expressed the differences between the achieved and predicted tooth positions. Thresholds for clinically relevant differences were at ±0.25 mm for linear displacement and ±2° for rotation. Differences were assessed using Hotelling's T-squared tests with Bonferroni correction. The mean differences in rotation (2.036° ± 4.217°) and torque (-2.913° ± 3.263°) were significant statistically and clinically, with p-values of 0.023 and 0.0003 respectively. De-rotation of premolars and torque control for all posterior teeth were less predictable. All mean differences for the linear measurements were statistically and clinically insignificant, except that the first molars seemed slightly (0.256 mm) more intruded than their predicted position. The clear aligner system appears to meet its prediction for most translational tooth movements and mesial-distal tipping in maxillary posterior teeth for non-extraction cases with mild to moderate malocclusions.

Environmental sustainability of post-orthodontic dental retainers: a comparative life-cycle assessment of Hawley and Essix retainers.

BACKGROUND: Environmental sustainability has been brought into the limelight due to the global climate crisis. This crisis is driven by human activities and even the healthcare sector is no exception. Within dentistry, orthodontics is a large global market; hence, the use of post-orthodontic retainers has a significant environmental footprint. The aim of this study was to determine the environmental sustainability of post-orthodontic retention using Hawley and Essix retainers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out to compare the environmental impact of both retainers. All inputs and outputs were accounted for using the Ecoinvent database, v3.7.1, and openLCA software. Sixteen impact categories were used to determine their environmental burden. RESULTS: Of the 16 impact categories, the Hawley had a greater environmental burden than the Essix retainer in 12 categories. The Hawley's most significant contributors to its impact values are factory manufacturing and in-house production, with an average of 41.45% and 52.52%, respectively. For the Essix, the greatest contributor is factory manufacturing, with an average of 64.63%. However, when factoring in the lifespan of the retainers, the Essix would have a greater environmental impact than the Hawley retainer. LIMITATIONS: This study employed a comparative LCA. There were also assumptions made, but these were supported by research. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the evidence gathered in this study, Hawley retainers are more environmentally sustainable than Essix retainers. These results would better enable clinicians to factor in the environmental impact and make informed decisions on the choice of retainer type.

Comparative assessment of two-phase class II treatment with Activator or Bionator followed by fixed appliances: A retrospective controlled before-and-after study.

AIM: Two-phase treatment for children with Class II malocclusion with several functional appliances is still performed by many orthodontists, while the Activator and the Bionator appliances are two of the most popular ones. Aim of this study was to compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of treatment with these two appliances. METHODS: Class II children treated with Activator or Bionator in the first phase, followed by a phase of fixed appliances were included. Skeletal and dentoalveolar parameters were assessed from lateral cephalograms and analysed with linear regressions at 5%. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients (mean age 10.0 years; 47% female) were included. During the first phase, Bionator increased less the SNB (difference in mean treatment-induced changes [MD] -0.7°; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.3 to -0.2°; P=0.01) and decreased less the ANB angle (MD 0.6°; 95% CI 0 to 1.1°; P=0.03) compared to Activator. Activator slightly increased the facial axis and Bionator reduced it (MD -1.6°; 95% CI -2.3 to -0.8°; P<0.001). Compared to Activator, the Bionator retroclined more the upper incisors (MD -2.4°; 95% CI -4.6 to -0.2°; P=0.03) and increased more the interincisal angle (MD 2.9°; 95% CI 0.5 to 5.4°; P=0.02). After the second phase (6.2 years after baseline), the only differences were a reduced facial axis (MD -1.3°; 95% CI -2.2 to -0.3°; P=0.008) and an increased maxillary rotation (MD 0.9°; 95% CI 0 to 1.8°; P=0.04) with Bionator compared to Activator. CONCLUSION: Similar dentoalveolar effects were seen overall with two-phase treatment with either appliance, with Bionator being associated with more vertical increase compared to Activator.

Stability, survival, patient satisfaction, and cost-minimization of CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a 2-year follow-up of a two-centre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) fixed retainers (FRs) as an alternative to multistranded FRs to maintain orthodontic treatment outcome. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to compare CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded FRs in terms of stability until 2 years. Secondary outcomes were failure rates, patient satisfaction, and cost-minimization. TRIAL DESIGN: 2-arm parallel, two-centre randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized to CAD/CAM or conventional FRs in both arches, in a 1:1 ratio and blocks of four. Allocation concealment was secured by using sequentially numbered envelopes. Patients were blinded. FRs were bonded at the end of treatment, and patients were recalled after 12 and 24 months. First-time retainer failures were recorded and digital impressions were taken. Arch widths and lengths, as well as Little's Irregularity Index (LII), were measured. Additionally, patients answered satisfaction questionnaires. Linear mixed models were applied for measurements and patient satisfaction. Survival analyses were estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves, along with Cox-regression modelling. Cost-minimization analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-one patients were randomized (98 in Centre 1, and 83 in Centre 2): 90 in CAD/CAM and 91 in conventional group. One hundred and fifty three patients attended T24 follow-up. There were no significant differences in LII and arch dimensions between groups for failure-free patients. Within 24 months, 34% maxillary CAD/CAM FRs and 38% maxillary conventional FRs failed, along with 42% mandibular CAD/CAM FRs and 40% mandibular conventional FRs, with no significant difference in survival between groups (hazard ratios conventional to CAD/CAM: maxillary arch: 1.20 [P = 0.46], mandibular arch: 0.98 [P = 0.94]). There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction between groups. No harms were observed. Cost-minimization analysis showed that CAD/CAM FRs were slightly cheaper than conventional FRs. CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinically significant differences in LII, arch widths, and lengths between CAD/CAM and conventional FRs after 24 months. There were no differences in failures and patient satisfaction between groups. CAD/CAM FRs were slightly cheaper than conventional FRs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04389879.

Assessment of patients' knowledge and preferences for the use of orthodontic aligners.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the knowledge and preference of patients treated at a Dental School in Jaraguá do Sul, Brazil, about using aligners and the reasons for choosing this device as a treatment option. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 82 participants aged 18-45 years recruited at a screening clinic. METHODS: A questionnaire was completed in person using a tablet with digital forms. RESULTS: Almost half of the participants (49%) knew about aligners; 40% were aged 18-24 years, and 77% were female. When observing the images of the types of orthodontic appliances, the aligners had an acceptance rate of 80%. Among the reasons that led to the preference for choosing aligners, 68% cited aesthetics and 42% comfort. CONCLUSION: Recently, clear aligners have become a popular choice for orthodontic treatment, particularly among adults. Despite their popularity and effectiveness, many patients still need more information about aligner treatment. Over half of the respondents did not know what orthodontic aligners were. Younger participants had more knowledge about aligners than older participants. Patients still need more knowledge about the types of appliances available for orthodontic treatment. When presented with images of the kinds of devices available, almost 80% of participants showed greater satisfaction with aligners.

Comparative assessment of orthodontic clear aligner versus fixed appliance for anterior retraction: a finite element study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative evaluation of different designs of clear aligners and examine the disparities between clear aligners and fixed appliances. METHODS: 3D digital models were created, consisting of a maxillary dentition without first premolars, maxilla, periodontal ligaments, attachments, micro-implant, 3D printed lingual retractor, brackets, archwire and clear aligner. The study involved the creation of five design models for clear aligner maxillary anterior internal retraction and one design model for fixed appliance maxillary anterior internal retraction, which were subsequently subjected to finite element analysis. These design models included: (1) Model C0 Control, (2) Model C1 Posterior Micro-implant, (3) Model C2 Anterior Micro-implant, (4) Model C3 Palatal Plate, (5) Model C4 Lingual Retractor, and (6) Model F0 Fixed Appliance. RESULTS: In the clear aligner models, a consistent pattern of tooth movement was observed. Notably, among all tested models, the modified clear aligner Model C3 exhibited the smallest differences in sagittal displacement of the crown-root of the central incisor, vertical displacement of the central incisor, sagittal displacement of the second premolar and second molar, as well as vertical displacement of posterior teeth. However, distinct variations in tooth movement trends were observed between the clear aligner models and the fixed appliance model. Furthermore, compared to the fixed appliance model, significant increases in tooth displacement were achieved with the use of clear aligner models. CONCLUSIONS: In the clear aligner models, the movement trend of the teeth remained consistent, but there were variations in the amount of tooth displacement. Overall, the Model C3 exhibited better torque control and provided greater protection for posterior anchorage teeth compared to the other four clear aligner models. On the other hand, the fixed appliance model provides superior anterior torque control and better protection of the posterior anchorage teeth compared to clear aligner models. The clear aligner approach and the fixed appliance approach still exhibit a disparity; nevertheless, this study offers a developmental direction and establishes a theoretical foundation for future non-invasive, aesthetically pleasing, comfortable, and efficient modalities of clear aligner treatment.

An assessment of the impact of adhesive coverage and wire type on fixed retainer failures and force propagation along two types of orthodontic retainer wires: an in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the force required to promote the failure of fixed orthodontic retainers with different adhesive (composite) coverage and to assess the presence and extent of force propagation with two different orthodontic retainer wires. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ortho-FlexTech and Ortho-Care Perform (0.0175 inches), each of 15-cm length, were bonded on acrylic blocks with different adhesive surface diameters (2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm). The samples (n = 160) were subjected to a tensile pull-out test, and debonding force was recorded. Fixed retainers using two different wires and 4-mm adhesive diameter were bonded on acrylic bases resembling a maxillary dental arch (n = 72). The retainers were loaded occluso-apically until the first sign of failure while being video recorded. Individual frames of the recordings were extracted and compared. A force propagation scoring index was developed to quantify the extent of force transmission under load. RESULTS: A 4-mm adhesive surface diameter required the highest debonding force for both retainer wires with significant differences compared with 2 mm (P < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.69, 21.69) and 3 mm (P = .026; 95% CI: 0.60, 13.59). Force propagation scores were significantly higher for Ortho-Care Perform. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this laboratory-based assessment, consideration should be given to the fabrication of maxillary fixed retainers using a minimum of 4-mm diameter composite coverage on each tooth. Force appeared to propagate more readily with Ortho-Care Perform than with a flexible chain alternative. This may risk stress accumulation at the terminal ends with potential for associated unwanted tooth movement in the presence of intact fixed retainers.

Comparative assessment of dental and basal arch dimensions of passive and active self-ligating versus conventional appliances : A randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: In this parallel, three-arm, single-center randomized trial, the dental and basal arch dimensions after orthodontic treatment using conventional brackets and passive and active self-ligating (SL) brackets were compared. METHODS: Patients needing comprehensive orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated to the active SL, passive SL, or conventional brackets (control) group. All patients were treated with a standardized arch wires sequence. Eligibility criteria included class I malocclusion in the permanent dentition, crowding (4-6 mm), and adequate oral hygiene. The primary outcome was intermolar width, based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. Secondary outcomes were maxillary and mandibular widths in the canines and premolars regions, dental arch depth, buccolingual inclination, and alignment duration. Blinding of outcome assessment was implemented. Patients were followed every 4 weeks until insertion of the stainless steel 0.019â€¯× 0.025 wire. Mean values were computed from CBCT sections, and data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: In all, 66 patients (ages 18-25 years) were randomized into a 1:1:1 ratio; 7 patients dropped out before treatment initiation. Examining dental arch dimensions in the canine and premolar regions showed that expansion of the maxillary dental arch was greatest in the passive SL brackets group, less in the active SL brackets group, and lowest in the control group (P < 0.01). Changes in maxillary intermolar width between the three groups were not significant, and changes in basal arch dimensions, depth of dental and basal arches, buccolingual inclination, and alignment duration were similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Self-ligating brackets were not more effective than conventional brackets when examining intermolar width, basal transverse dimensions, depth of the arch, and alignment duration.

Which orthodontic retention protocol should I implement? A critical assessment of a randomised controlled trial.

Trial design A single-centre two-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial.Objectives To assess differences in dental stability, patient perceptions and compliance and retainer failures in adolescents treated with vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) compared with those receiving bonded canine-to canine retainers after five years in retention.Methods In total, 104 eligible adolescents treated with fixed appliances in both jaws in a Swedish orthodontic clinic were randomised to two retention protocols. The intervention protocol consisted of a VFR covering all erupted teeth in the maxilla and a VFR in the mandible covering first premolar to first premolar. The controls received a VFR in the maxilla covering all erupted teeth and a bonded retainer wire to the lingual surfaces of the canines. The primary outcomes were various dental stability measures assessed at: debond (T1); six months (T2); 18 months (T3); and after five years (T4) in retention. Generalised estimating equations were used to quantify the effect of the different interventions on these outcome measures. One operator assessed all outcomes and participants could not be blinded. For the secondary outcomes, the perception and compliance with the retention protocols were assessed and the prevalence and rationale of retainer failure at T4. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03070444) and the research project was supported by the Centre for Research and Development, Region Gävleborg, Sweden.Results Of the 104 randomised patients, 30 were not available at T4, leaving 35 patients in the intervention and 39 in the comparator group. An intention-to-treat analysis was used to impute outcomes for the missing patients. Post-treatment changes at T4 were small in both jaws. In the maxilla, the Little's Irregularity Index (LII) increased similar in both retention groups (median difference: 0.3 mm). In the mandible, the median difference for the LLI in the bonded retainer group was 0.1 mm compared with 0.6 mm in VFR group. In both retention protocols, the overjet remained stable, the overbite increased and the arch lengths continued to decrease. Intercanine and intermolar width remained stable in the mandible. Intermolar width decreased significantly in the maxilla. No differences in satisfaction were found between retention protocols after five years. Also, 72% of patients had stopped or rarely wore the VFR appliances at T4. Besides some retainer failures in both groups, no serious adverse effects associated with the retainers were reported.Conclusions Most post-treatment changes in both retention protocols were small in both jaws, except for the anterior alignment in the mandible, which was more stable in the bonded retainer group. This difference is possibly not related to the retention technique but to the poor compliance with the VFRs and the inclusion of adolescents only. Satisfaction with both protocols was similar.

A two-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of Hawley retainers (HRs) and modified vacuum-formed retainers (mVFRs) with palatal coverage in maintaining transverse expansion throughout a 24-month retention period and to assess the subjects' perception toward the retainers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The trial accomplished blinding only by the outcome assessor and data analyst. Data were collected from post-orthodontic treatment patients who met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-five subjects were randomly allocated using a centralized randomization technique into either mVFR (n = 18) or HR group (n = 17). Dental casts of subjects were evaluated at debond (T0), 3-month (T1), 6-month (T2), 12-month (T3), and 24-month retention (T4). The intercanine width (ICW), interpremolar width (IPMW), interfirst molar mesiobuccal cusp width (IFMW1), and interfirst molar distobuccal cusp width (IFMW2) were compared between groups over time using Mixed ANOVA. A pilot-tested and validated questionnaire consisting of six items were given at T4. Subjects were instructed to rate their retainer in terms of fitting, speech, appearance, oral hygiene, durability, and comfort on a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in arch width were found between the two groups at ICW (P = .83), IPMW (P = 0.63), IFMW1 (P = .22), and IFMW2 (P = .46) during the 24-month retention period. Also, no statistically significant differences were found between perception of both retainers in terms of fitting, speech, oral hygiene, durability, and comfort (P > .05) after 24-month wear. The appearance of mVFRs was rated significantly higher compared to HRs (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: HR and mVFR have similar clinical effectiveness for retention of transverse expansion cases in a 24-month retention period. Both retainers were perceived to be equal in terms of fitting, speech, oral hygiene, durability, and comfort. Subjects in the mVFRs group found their retainers to be significantly more esthetic than those in HRs group.

Cost analysis of two types of fixed maxillary retainers and a removable vacuum-formed maxillary retainer: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increased interest in conducting healthcare economic evaluations. Also, orthodontic treatments have gathered focus from an economic point of view, however orthodontic research seldom examines both clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the costs of three retention methods: a bonded retainer to the maxillary four incisors, a bonded retainer to the maxillary four incisors and canines, and a removable vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) in the maxilla. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in costs for the three types of retention methods. TRIAL DESIGN: Three-arm, parallel group, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety adolescent patients, 54 girls and 36 boys, treated with fixed or removable retainers in the maxilla, were recruited to the study. The patients were randomized in blocks of 30, by an independent person, to one of three groups: bonded multistranded PentaOne (Masel Orthodontics) retainer 13-23, bonded multistranded PentaOne (Masel Orthodontics) retainer 12-22, and removable VFR. A cost analysis was made regarding chair time costs based on the costs per hour for the specialist in orthodontics, and material costs plus any eventual costs for repairs of the appliance. Changes in Little's irregularity index and in single contact point discrepancies (CPDs) were measured on digitalized three-dimensional study casts. Data were evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. The analysis was performed at 2 years of retention. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in costs between the maxillary fixed retainers and the VFRs was found, however, the material and emergency costs were significantly higher for the VFR compared with the bonded retainers. All three retention methods showed equally effective retention capacity, and no statistically significant differences in irregularity or CPDs of the maxillary anterior teeth in the three groups was detected. LIMITATIONS: It was a single-centre trial, and hence less generalizable. Costs depended on local factors, and consequently, cannot be directly transferred to other settings. CONCLUSIONS: All three retention methods can be recommended when considering costs and retention capacity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04616755.

Super-elasticity in vitro assessment of CuNiTi wires according to their Austenite finish temperature and the imposed displacement.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the super-elasticity of CuNiTi wires (Ormco, Glendora, Calif) according to their Austenite finish temperature (Af) and to the imposed displacement. The secondary objective was to compare the wire dimensions with the stated measurements and to study interbatch variability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 10 types of CuNiTi wires (Ormco, Glendora, Calif) (n = 350) were investigated at 36 ± 1°C, with conventional brackets (Victory Series, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). Tensile test with coronoapical displacement ranging from 1 to 5 mm of the canine bracket was imposed. The wire dimensions were initially measured from two batches (n = 10). RESULTS: Dimensional heterogeneity varied by ± 2.00% compared to the manufacturer's data, and even up to 5.54% for 0.014-inch CuNiTi (P = .00069). However, all unloading forces were reproducible. In decreasing order, the forces delivered by a CuNiTi 27 were greater than those with CuNiTi 35 and 40. The super-elasticity was expressed only for displacements of 1 to 2 mm, at best up to 3 mm for 0.014-inch CuNiTi 27. CONCLUSIONS: The value of Af as well as the amount of imposed displacement seem to influence the expression of the super-elasticity of CuNiTi wires and the amount of corrected malocclusion. Among the tested wires, under these experimental conditions, 0.014-inch wire could be suitable as a first archwire. CuNiTi 35, therefore, seems to offer the best compromise among the force level, the expression of super-elasticity and the amount of malocclusion correction.

Comparative assessment of relapse and failure between CAD/CAM stainless steel and standard stainless steel fixed retainers in orthodontic retention patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare relapse and failure rates of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and standard fixed retainers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial included 46 patients who completed active orthodontic treatment and complied with retention visits. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups: CAD/CAM group with multistranded stainless steel wires (CAD/CAM, n = 16), Lab group with the same multistranded wires (lab, n = 16), and control group with stainless steel Ortho-FlexTech wires (traditional, n = 14). Intraoral scans were obtained at placement of fixed retainers (T1), 3-month visit (T2), and 6-month visit (T3) and measured for intercanine width and Little's Irregularity Index. Failures were recorded. RESULTS: The CAD/CAM group experienced less intercanine width decrease than the traditional group at 3 months (mean difference, 0.83 ± 0.16 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.22; P < .001) and 6 months (mean difference, 1.23 ± 0.40 mm; 95% CI, 0.19-2.27; P < .05). The CAD/CAM group experienced less increase in Little's Irregularity Index compared with the lab group within 3 months (mean difference, 0.81 ± 0.27 mm; 95% CI, 0.12-1.49; P < .05). Failures from greatest to least were experienced by the lab group (43.8%), the CAD/CAM group (25%), and the traditional group (14.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Within 6 months of bonding fixed retainers, CAD/CAM fixed retainers showed less relapse than lab-based and traditional chairside retainers and less failures than lab-based retainers.

One-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of Hawley retainers (HRs) and modified vacuum-formed retainers (mVFRs) with palatal coverage in maintaining transverse expansion during a 12-month retention period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from postorthodontic treatment patients who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 35 patients were randomly allocated using a centralized randomization technique into either mVFR (n = 18) or HR group (n = 17). The outcome assessor and data analyst were blinded to the retention method. Dental casts of patients were evaluated at debond, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months of retention. Intercanine width (ICW), interpremolar width (IPMW), interfirst molar mesiobuccal cusp width 1 (IFMW1), and interfirst molar distobuccal cusp width 2 (IFMW2) were compared between groups over time using mixed analysis of variance. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for ICW (P = .76), IPMW (P = .63), IFMW1 (P = .16), and IFMW2 (P = .40) during the 12-month retention period. CONCLUSIONS: The null hypothesis could not be rejected. HR and mVFR had similar clinical effectiveness in the retention of transverse expansion cases during a 12-month retention period.

A comparative assessment of failures and periodontal health between 2 mandibular lingual retainers in orthodontic patients. A 2-year follow-up, single practice-based randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the survival rates and periodontal health in patients with 3-strand round twisted (RT) vs 8-strand rectangular braided (RB) fixed retainers bonded to all 6 anterior teeth in the mandible. METHODS: A total of 133 patients completing orthodontic treatment (median age, 24.6 years; 25th percentile, 17.2 years; 75th percentile, 32.4 years; minimum, 15.1 years; maximum, 49.8 years) were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either an RT or RB wire retainer. Inclusion criteria were all mandibular permanent incisors and canines present, no active caries, no restorations, no fractures on the mandibular incisors and canines, no periodontal disease. Patients with poor oral hygiene before debonding were excluded from the trial. The primary outcome was any first-time retainer failure. Secondary outcomes were periodontal index, bleeding on probing, plaque index, gingival index, and probing depth. Randomization was accomplished with random permuted blocks of size 4, 6, or 8 with allocation concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Blinding was not possible in this trial. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after placement of the retainer. Retainer survival was assessed using Cox regression. Periodontal parameters were reported at each time point and generalised estimating equations were used to assess the effect of treatment, time, tooth and treatment X time interaction on the indices. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; in 1 patient, the intervention was discontinued. During 2-year follow-up 37 of 66 (56.1%, RT group) and 32 of 66 (48.5%, RB group) retainers failed at least once (log-rank test, P = 0.55). The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.12; P = 0.13). Neither age nor gender was a predictor of failure. All periodontal parameters (periodontal index, bleeding on probing, plaque index, gingival index, and pocket depth) were comparable between groups and remained relatively stable during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The overall risk for first-time failure was high and amounted to 52.3% (56.1% in the RT group and 48.5% in the RB group). There was no difference in terms of survival or periodontal health between the examined retainers.

Assessment on the Precision of the Orthodontic Bracket Slot Dimensions Using Micro-computed Tomography (Micro-CT).

AIM: To evaluate the precision of the orthodontic bracket slot dimensions of 0.022 inch and to compare them with those of the manufacturers' specifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The slots of upper-right central incisor brackets (n = 5) from 11 commercial bracket systems of three different manufacturers (3M Unitek: Victory Mini Metal, Clarity, SmartClip, Clarity SL; ORMCO/SYBRON: Mini Diamond Twin, Damon Q, Damon Clear; Dentsply/GAC: Ovation, Mystique, In-Ovation R, In-Ovation C) were measured. The orthodontic brackets were scanned using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), and the bracket slots were measured using micro-CT images. The slot was measured at four different surfaces (occlusal, gingival, base, and face) for both mesial and distal sites. Data were subjected to ANOVA and unpaired t-tests. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: All brackets had slot dimensions that were significantly larger (p < 0.05) than the stated 0.022 inch. 3M-victory were 11.99% larger (0.02509 inch) and the closest to the stated dimension and the ORM-Damon C were 24.07% larger (0.02948 inch) than the quoted slot size of 0.022 inch. Comparison between mesial and distal sides showed that 91% of the bracket slots were asymmetrical at their bases and 100% asymmetrical at their faces. All of the bracket system showed divergent walls from base to face with values ranging from 1.96 (3M-SmartClip) to 26.58% (ORM-Damon C). CONCLUSION: The actual measurements of 11 bracket systems from three different manufacturers were more substantial than the manufacturers' specifications, and the walls of the slots diverged from the bracket bases in all of the tested bracket system. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Orthodontic bracket slots vary significantly from that of the manufacturers' specification. The orthodontist should anticipate such shortcomings and be able to modify treatment mechanics through additional wire bending in three spatial planes.

Clinical outcomes of lingual fully customized vs labial straight wire systems : Assessment based on American Board of Orthodontics criteria.

PURPOSE: To evaluate orthodontic treatment outcome in patients treated with a lingual appliance (Incognito™ Appliance System, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) versus patients treated with a labial appliance (Victory series™, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). METHODS: A total of 72 patients were retrospectively analyzed. The complexity of each case was evaluated using the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Discrepancy Index (DI), and orthodontic clinical outcomes were evaluated using the ABO Objective Grading System (cast-radiograph evaluation: C­R Eval). RESULTS: The mean total ABO C­R Eval score was 16 ± 9.1 in the labial appliance group and 12.7 ± 5.4 in lingual appliance group (p = 0.152). The mean total ABO-DI scores were 16.3 ± 7.3 and 15.4 ± 6.6 in the labial and lingual appliance groups, respectively (p = 0.445). A significant correlation was observed between the total DI and total C­R Eval scores. CONCLUSIONS: In this particular study and in the hands of two experienced orthodontists, no differences in the finishing quality of orthodontic treatments using the lingual technique or the buccal appliance technique were found. However, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are necessary in order to generalize these results.

Outcome assessment of orthodontic clear aligner vs fixed appliance treatment in a teenage population with mild malocclusions.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and efficiency of treatment in adolescents presenting with mild malocclusions, comparing outcomes using clear aligners to fixed appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients identified retrospectively and consecutively from one private practice had been treated with either clear aligners (Invisalign, Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) or fixed appliances (0.022 Damon, Ormco, Orange, Calif; n = 26/group). Assessments of occlusion were made using the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index (DI) for initial records and Cast-Radiograph Evaluation (CRE) for final records. Number of appointments, number of emergency visits, and overall treatment time were determined from chart reviews. Data were analyzed using Pearson's correlation, Wilcoxon rank tests, unpaired t-tests, and Chi-square tests, with significance set to P ≤ .05. RESULTS: Pretreatment, the aligner and fixed groups showed no significant difference in overall severity (DI: 11.9 ± 5.3 vs 11.6 ± 4.8) or in any individual DI category. Posttreatment scores showed finishes for the aligner group had fewer discrepancies from ideal relative to the fixed appliance group (CRE: 30.1 ± 8.3 vs 37.0 ± 9.3; P < .01). Patients treated with aligners had fewer appointments (13.7 ± 4.4 vs 19.3 ± 3.6; P < .0001), fewer emergency visits (0.8 ± 1.0 vs 3.6 ± 2.5; P < .0001), and shorter overall treatment time (16.9 ± 5.7 vs 23.4 ± 4.4 months; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for treatment of mild malocclusions in adolescents showed equivalent effectiveness of clear aligners compared to fixed appliances, with significantly improved results for clear aligner treatment in terms of tooth alignment, occlusal relations, and overjet. Assessment of the number of appointments, number of emergency visits, and overall treatment time showed better outcomes for treatment with clear aligners.