Does the composite attachment of clear aligners compromise the effectiveness of dental bleaching? An in vitro study.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of dental bleaching with hydrogen peroxide 35% on the surface below the attachments. METHODS: Twenty-four blocks of bovine incisors were equally divided into 2 groups. The control group comprises the enamel surface free of attachments, whereas the attachment group comprises the enamel surface with attachment. Initial staining of samples was performed with black tea for 7 days; then, an attachment was made in the attachment group with Z250 resin and new staining for another 7 days in all samples. After staining, in-office bleaching was performed in both groups, and the attachments from the attachment group were removed. Color reading was performed with a spectrophotometer at all stages: initial (baseline), after 7 days of staining, after 14 days of staining, after immediate bleaching, and after 24 hours of bleaching. The color difference was calculated, and data analysis was performed using the t test for intergroup analysis. RESULTS: The results showed effective bleaching in both groups; however, there was a statistically significant difference in color change between them 24 hours after bleaching. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that the presence of attachment did not impair the action of the bleaching agent on the tooth surface.

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.

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.

Effectiveness and predictability of treatment with clear orthodontic aligners: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: In an ideal clinical setting, orthodontic therapy with clear aligners (CA) should improve the patients' initial malocclusion and must guarantee equivalence between the results predicted and those obtained clinically to be considered an effective treatment. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to identify the orthodontic literature concerning the effectiveness and predictability of CA treatments. METHODS: A systematic computerized search was performed in 3 databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Inclusion criteria selected observational and clinical studies performed in at least 10 adult orthodontic patients, whose results of CA treatment's effectiveness and/or predictability were assessed. RESULTS: The 3 database computerized searches resulted in 1,553 articles, and 169 full texts were considered potentially relevant. After applying the eligibility criteria, 33 studies were included. Most studies (76%) were designed as cohort studies and have been published in the last 5 years (79%). The majority included only non-extraction treatments (73%), and 79% reported results achieved with the Invisalign® system. The most predictable movement was the buccolingual tipping, while the least predictable movements were rotation, intrusion, and extrusion. Aligner treatment was effective for mild to moderate crowding resolution, and the success of overbite correction still seems to be limited. CONCLUSIONS: The studies have demonstrated improvement of initial malocclusion through CA treatments. Still, predictability degree is overestimated and does not accurately reflect the occlusion immediately at the end of treatment. In future studies, there should be an effort to broaden the utilization of alternative aligner systems beyond Invisalign® and broadly disseminate their outcomes to strengthen clear aligners evidence base.

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.

Stability of class II treatment with Pendulum and Jones jig followed by fixed appliances.

INTRODUCTION: The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the long-term stability of Class II correction with the Pendulum or Jones jig followed by fixed appliances. SETTINGS AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Group 1 comprised 20 Class II malocclusion patients with a mean initial age of 13.97 years (SD = 1.57), treated with Pendulum and fixed appliances for a mean period of 4.72 years (SD = 0.98), and mean long-term post-treatment evaluation of 4.72 years (SD = 0.97). Group 2 consisted of 18 Class II patients with a mean initial age of 13.19 years (SD = 1.26), treated with Jones jig and fixed appliances for a mean period of 3.96 years (SD = 0.92). Mean long-term post-treatment time was 5.50 years (SD = 1.57). METHODS: Lateral cephalograms were evaluated at three stages: initial (T1), final (T2) and long-term post-treatment (T3). Intragroup comparisons were performed with repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test and intergroup comparisons with independent t test. RESULTS: Many treatment changes were observed in both groups. From the long-term post-treatment periods, there was stability for most of the variables. Maxillary second molars and mandibular first molars extruded in the Jones jig group and slightly intruded in the Pendulum appliance group. The nasolabial angle decreased in the Pendulum group and increased in the Jones jig group. CONCLUSION: The correction of a Class II malocclusion was shown to be stable with similar long-term post-treatment results with Pendulum or Jones jig followed by fixed orthodontic appliances.

Teeth angulations after class II treatment with the Jones Jig followed by fixed appliances: A retrospective panoramic analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the maxillary mesiodistal dental angulations of Class II malocclusion patients treated with the Jones Jig, followed by fixed appliances, with normal values of a historical control group, on panoramic radiographs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample comprised 80 panoramic radiographs of 40 patients divided into two groups. Eligibility criteria included patients with predominantly dental Class II malocclusion; the presence of all teeth up to the second molars and no previous orthodontic treatment. The experimental group was composed of 60 radiographs of 20 patients treated with the Jones Jig distalizer followed by fixed appliances. The radiographs were taken at pre-treatment (T0), post-distalization (T1), and post-treatment (T2). The historical control group comprised 20 radiographs of 20 subjects with untreated normal occlusion. The mesiodistal axial angulations of all maxillary erupted teeth were evaluated with the Dolphin Imaging software. Intragroup comparisons in the experimental group were performed with repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey tests. The experimental group at T2 versus the control group were compared with t tests. RESULTS: After distalization, significant distal angulation of the molars (110.58°±8.54, P<0.000) and mesial angulation of the second (86.43°±8.08, P<0.000) and first premolars (80.11°±8.01, P<0.000) was observed. However, this was corrected after comprehensive fixed orthodontics (100.54°±6.53; 98.95°±7.00; 94.92°±6.44; P<0.000, for these teeth, respectively). Intergroup comparisons resulted in first molars, premolars, canines, and central incisors significantly more distally angulated in the experimental group, when compared to the control. CONCLUSIONS: In general, at the end of orthodontic treatment, patients treated with the Jones Jig distalizer followed by fixed appliances presented more distally angulated maxillary teeth when compared to an untreated group with normal occlusion.

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.

Comparison of the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes with the cervical headgear and Jones Jig followed by fixed appliances in Class II malocclusion patients: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes of patients with Class II malocclusion treated with cervical headgear and Jones Jig appliances, followed by fixed appliances. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample comprised 46 Class II malocclusion patients divided into two groups. Patients with Class II malocclusion based on the ANB angle and plaster model analyses, needing non-extraction orthodontic treatment, absence of mandibular crowding and no previous orthodontic treatment were eligible to be selected. Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with cervical headgear (CH) followed by fixed appliances for a mean period of 3.26 years and group 2 consisted of 21 patients treated with the Jones Jig (JJ) appliance for a mean of 4.29 years. Lateral cephalograms were evaluated at the beginning and at the end of orthodontic treatment. For intergroup comparisons, t and Mann-Whitney tests were performed. RESULTS: The cervical headgear group produced significantly greater maxillary anterior displacement restriction (SNA; CH: -0.97°±1.33; JJ: 0.07°±1.73; P=0.025), apical base discrepancy improvement (ANB; CH: -1.52°±1.25; JJ: 0.36°±1.46; P=0.006), FMA reduction (CH: -0.78°±2.68; JJ: 1.07°±2.84; P=0.028) and distal mandibular molar angulation (Md6.PM; CH: 6.97°±3.66; JJ: 2.77°±6.87; P=0.013) than the Jones Jig group. CONCLUSIONS: Both distalizers followed by fixed appliances were effective to correct Class II malocclusion. The cervical headgear group presented skeletal effects with less treatment time and there were no significant intergroup differences regarding soft tissue changes.

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.

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.

Treatment of a Class II Malocclusion with Deep Overbite in an Adult Patient Using Intermaxillary Elastics and Spee Curve Controlling with Reverse and Accentuated Archwires.

This paper aimed to describe the orthodontic treatment of an adult patient with the following characteristics: asymmetric Class II malocclusion, left subdivision, mandibular midline shifted to the left, mild mandibular anterior crowding, excessive overbite, 4-mm overjet, and a brachycephalic facial pattern. A 31-year-old male patient, treated with fixed preadjusted appliance with Roth prescription, with leveling and alignment NiTi archwire sequence. To correct the asymmetric Class II malocclusion, midline shift as well the overjet and overbite, intermaxillary elastics and accentuated and reversed stainless steel archwires were used, respectively. The posttreatment results showed a Class I molar relationship, as well the overjet and overbite correction. These results could be achieved due to a correct treatment plan and so to the patient cooperation.

Efeitos dentoalveolares da correção da classe ii por meio dos elásticos intermaxilares / Dentoalveolar effects of class ii correction with intermaxillary elastics

Os elásticos intermaxilares promovem a correção da Classe II por meio de efeitos dentoalveolares. Portanto conhecer os efeitos provocados na utilização dos elásticos intermaxilares é imprescindível para obtenção de melhores resultados, de forma a se favorecer dos efeitos ocorridos ou ainda controlar a movimentação não desejada. O objetivo deste trabalho foi relatar o tratamento de uma má oclusão de ¾ de Classe II utilizando elásticos intermaxilares. Por meio de um minucioso diagnóstico e adequado controle da mecânica ortodôntica foi possível observar correção satisfatória da má oclusão inicial.(AU)

The intermaxillary elastics promote a Class II correction through dentoalveolar effects. Therefore to know the effects caused by the use of intermaxillary elastics is essential to obtain better results, in order to benefit from the effects or to control unwanted movement. The aim of this study was to report the treatment of a Class II malocclusion using intermaxillary elastics. Through a meticulous diagnosis and adequate control of orthodontic mechanics it was possible to observe a satisfactory correction of the initial malocclusion.(AU)

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)

Avaliação do tratamento da classe II com o distalizador First Class em ancoragem convencional e esquelética / Evaluation of class II treatment with First Class distalizer in conventional and skeletal anchorage

O objetivo deste estudo longitudinal foi avaliar as alterações dentoesqueléticas e tegumentares de jovens com má-oclusão de classe II, tratados com distalizador First Class em dois tipos diferentes de ancoragem. Foram selecionados 30 pacientes e divididos em dois grupos de 15: G1 (recebeu o distalizador com ancoragem convencional no botão de Nance); e G2 (recebeu o distalizador com ancoragem esquelética apoiado em dois mini-implantes no palato). As telerradiografias foram obtidas antes e após a distalização dos molares para a realização das análises cefalométricas. O tempo médio de tratamento foi de 4,51 e 6,28 meses para G1 e G2, respectivamente. Ambos os grupos apresentaram alterações dentárias significantes com distalização (G1=2,39 mm; G2=2,21 mm), angulação distal (G1=10,51°; G2=4,49°) e intrusão (G1=0,53 mm; G2=0,10 mm) dos primeiros molares superiores. A perda de ancoragem foi semelhante entre os dois grupos, com significante mesialização (G1=2,78 mm; G2=3,11 mm) e angulação mesial (G1=4,95°; G2=4,69°) dos segundos pré-molares, protrusão (G1=1,55 mm; G2=1,94 mm) e vestibularização (G1=5,78°; G2=3,13°) significantes dos incisivos superiores e um aumento significante no trespasse horizontal (G1=1,07 mm; G2=0,81 mm). A mecânica de distalização não interferiu nos componentes esqueléticos e tegumentares dos pacientes. Em ambos os grupos, o distalizador First Class promoveu correção da relação molar, porém, apresentou efeitos de perda de ancoragem verificada nos pré-molares e incisivos superiores, mesmo quando associado a mini-implantes. Não houve diferença significante entre os grupos quanto às alterações dentárias lineares, porém, as angulares foram significantemente menores no grupo com ancoragem esquelética.

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the dental, skeletal and soft tissue changes in youngsters with class II malocclusion treated with First Class distalizer in two different types of anchorage. Thirty patients were included and divided in two groups of 15. G1 that received distalizers with conventional anchorage (Nance button) and G2 that received distalizers with skeletal anchorage supported in two palatal mini-implants. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before and after molar distalization for cephalometric analysis. The mean treatment period was 4.51 and 6.28 months for G1 and G2, respectively. Both groups showed significant dental changes with distalization (G1=2.39 mm; G2=2.21 mm), distal tipping (G1=10.51°; G2=4.49°) and intrusion (G1=0.53 mm; G2=0.10 mm) of maxillary first molars. Anchorage loss showed similar results in both groups with significant mesialization (G1=2.78 mm; G2=3.11 mm) and mesial tipping (G1=4.95°; G2=4.69°) of maxillary second premolars, significant protrusion (G1=1.55 mm; G2=1.94 mm) and proclination (G1=5.78°; G2=3.13°) of maxillary incisors and significant increase in overjet (G1=1.07 mm; G2=0.81 mm). The distalization mechanics did not interfere in patient's skeletal and soft tissue measurements. In both groups, the First Class distalizer corrected the molar relationship, however it showed anchorage loss effects in maxillary premolars and incisors even when associated to mini-implants. There was no significant difference between groups on dental linear changes, however the dental angular changes were significantly lower in the skeletal anchorage group.

Tratamento atípico da biprotrusão dentoalveolar / Atipical treatment of dentoalveolar biprotrusion ­ a case report

A biprotrusão dentoalveolar é caracterizada pelo posicionamento mais anterior dos incisivos superiores e inferiores, o que traz como consequência um selamento labial deficiente e um perfil convexo, comprometendo a estética facial do paciente e fazendo com que este busque no tratamento ortodôntico a sua correção. O plano de tratamento destes casos, na sua maioria, envolve a realização de extrações, porém, quando já previamente ao tratamento o paciente apresenta ausências dentárias, o planejamento é simplificado, já que a retração anterior necessária pode ser direcionada para estes espaços sem que haja necessidade de extrações nestas regiões. O objetivo deste trabalho foi apresentar um caso clínico que promoveu a correção da biprotrusão e, consequentemente, da estética do sorriso e facial da paciente, através da realização da exodontia de apenas dois primeiros pré-molares superiores e retração anteroinferior redirecionada para os espaços já existentes, em consequência da perda do molar inferior esquerdo e devido à agenesia do incisivo lateral inferior direito. Além disso, no controle de sete anos pós-tratamento, observou-se estabilidade oclusal e manutenção da estética facial.

Dental biprotrusion is characterized by greater buccal tipping of the upper and lower incisors, rendering poor lip closure and convex profile, compromising the patient's facial esthetics and making him/her to seek orthodontic treatment for correction. In these cases the treatment plan, mostly involves performing extractions, but when already prior to treatment the patient has missing teeth, the treatment plan becomes simplified, since the anterior retraction required might be directed to these areas with no need for removal. The goal of this study is to show a case that promoted the correction of biprotrusion and consequently the patient smile and facial esthetics by performing the extraction of only two first maxillary premolars and anterior retraction redirected for the existing spaces as a result of the mandibular left molar loss and due to agenesis of the right lateral incisor. In addition, the 7-year follow-up control demonstrated occlusal stability and maintenance of the facial esthetics.

Tratamento compensatório da mordida cruzada dentoalveolar em adultos utilizando o arco auxiliar de expansão / Compensatory treatment of dentoalveolar crossbite in adult patients using the auxiliary expansion arch

Nos indivíduos adultos e adolescentes com maturação óssea avançada, a correção da deficiência transversal da maxila torna-se um desafio para o ortodontista. O tratamento dessa má oclusão, cuja característica dentária predominante é a mordida cruzada posterior, é controverso e suscita muitas dúvidas. O objetivo deste trabalho é apresentar uma alternativa de tratamento para expansão dentoalveolar, no qual a expansão cirúrgica não é a opção mais indicada, ou o paciente recusa submeter-se a procedimentos cirúrgicos. O arco auxiliar de expansão, também conhecido como arco de cavalgada (Jockey Arch), é um método auxiliar para a expansão dentoalveolar nos casos onde a mordida cruzada é diagnosticada somente como dentária ou nos casos em que há envolvimento esquelético com grau leve promovendo uma compensação por meio de inclinações dentárias para vestibular. Este trabalho observou a efetividade do aparelho em quatro casos clínicos, demonstrando a correção da atresia dentoalveolar superior por meio de uma mecânica simplificada e eficiente. Contudo, faz-se necessária a realização de mais estudos para avaliar a efetividade do aparelho e, principalmente, a estabilidade da expansão dentária realizada por meio do arco auxiliar de expansão...

In adults and adolescents with advanced bone maturation the treatment of transverse maxillary deficiency becomes a challenge for orthodontists. The treatment of this dental malocclusion, characterized mainly by posterior crossbite, is controversial and raises many questions. The objective of this paper is to present an alternative treatment for dentoalveolar expansion for cases in which the surgical expansion is not the first option or the patient refuses to submit to surgical procedures. The auxiliary expansion arch, also known as Jockey Arch, is an aid for dentoalveolar expansion in cases where the crossbite is diagnosed only as dental or when there is mild skeletal involvement, promoting compensation through dental inclinations buccal method. This study has observed the effectiveness of the device in four cases, showing the correction of maxillary dentoalveolar constriction through a simple mechanics. However, further studies are required to evaluate the effectiveness of the device and mainly the stability of dental expansion conducted at the Jockey arch...

Tratamento multidisciplinar em paciente com má-oclusão de Classe II e comprometimento periodontal / Multidisciplinary treatment of a patient with Class II malocclusion and periodontal commitment

Devido às sequelas deixadas pela doença periodontal, um número maior de pacientes adultos tem procurado tratamento ortodôntico, seja por motivos estéticos, funcionais ou encaminhados por outras especialidades para melhorar a oclusão e a qualidade de vida. O objetivo deste trabalho foi apresentar o tratamento ortodôntico de um paciente adulto com pouco suporte ósseo, diastemas anteriores generalizados e ausência de dentes posteriores,o que causou um colapso oclusal. Após o controle da doença periodontal e uma rigorosa higiene bucal, realizou-se uma biomecânica simples por meio de forças leves, o que proporcionou melhora do defeito ósseo em algumas regiões, posicionando as raízes paralelamente a fim de possibilitar a reabilitação bucal com implantes e próteses. Ao final dos resultados, comprovou-se que é possível tratar ortodonticamente pacientes adultos com pouco suporte ósseo e melhorar a estética do sorriso, devolver a função, facilitar a higiene bucal e diminuir defeitos ósseos. Para tanto, é imprescindível um protocolo multidisciplinar, orientação ao paciente quanto às limitações do tratamento e à importância da proservação.

Due to the sequel caused by periodontal disease, a greater number of adult’s patients are seeking for orthodontic treatment, whether for aesthetic, functionality or referred by other specialties to improve the occlusion and quality of life. The aim of this work is to show orthodontic treatment in adult’s patient with little bone support with generalized previous interdental spaces and absence of posterior teeth, which caused an occlusal collapse. After periodontal disease control and a rigorous oral hygiene, was performed an easy biomechanics with light forces, which provided an improvement of other bone defects in some regions, positioning the root parallel, to enable oral rehabilitation with implants and prostheses. At the end the results it was proved that is possible to treat adult orthodontic patients with little bone support, aiming to improve the aesthetics, restore function, facilitate oral hygiene and reduce bone defects. Therefore, it is essential multidisciplinary protocol, patient education about the limitations of treatment and the importance of preservation.