Friction versus frictionless mechanics during maxillary en-masse retraction in adult patients with Class I bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Extraction space closure is a challenging phase during orthodontic treatment that affects not only the total treatment duration but also the whole treatment outcome. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficiency of friction and frictionless mechanics during en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in adult patients with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. TRIAL DESIGN: Two-arm parallel group, single-center randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two adult patients with bimaxillary protrusion were recruited and randomly allocated to two different retraction mechanics. A friction group, using NiTi coil springs and a frictionless group using closing T-loops for en-masse retraction. Randomization in a 1:1 ratio was generated by Microsoft Excel. The randomization numbers were secured in opaque sealed envelopes for allocation concealment. Retraction started in all patients following first premolars extraction using miniscrews as a source of indirect anchorage. Activation was done on a monthly basis until complete retraction of anterior segment. The rate of retraction, amount of anchorage loss, the dental, and soft tissue changes were analyzed on digital models and lateral cephalograms taken before retraction and after space closure. BLINDING: The outcome assessor was blinded through data concealment during assessment. RESULTS: Two patients were lost to follow up, so 30 patients completed the trial. The rate of anterior segment retraction was 0.88 ±â€…0.66 mm/month in the frictionless group compared to 0.72 ±â€…0.36 mm/month in the friction group which was statistically significant. Anchorage loss of 1.18 ±â€…0.72 mm in the friction group compared to 1.29 ±â€…0.55 mm in the frictionless group with no significant difference. Comparable dental and soft tissue changes following en-masse retraction were reported in both groups, with no statistically significant difference. HARM: one patient complained of soft tissue swelling following miniscrew insertion, but the swelling disappeared after one week of using mouth wash. LIMITATION: The study focused only on the maxillary arch. CONCLUSION: Both mechanics have successfully achieved the required treatment objectives in patients with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Frictionless group showed a faster rate of retraction than the friction group, which was statistically but not clinically significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT03261024.

Comparative study of intermaxillary relationships of manual and swallowing methods

This study compared the mandibular displacement from three methods of centric relation record using an anterior jig associated with (A) chin point guidance, (B) swallowing (control group) and (C) bimanual manipulation. Ten patients aged 25-39 years were selected if they met the following inclusion criteria: complete dentition (up to the second molars), Angle class I and absence of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders and diagnostic casts showing stability in the maximum intercuspation (MI) position. Impressions of maxillary and mandibular arches were made with an irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. Master casts of each patient were obtained, mounted on a microscope table in MI as a reference position and 5 records of each method were made per patient. The mandibular casts were then repositioned with records interposed and new measurements were obtained. The difference between the two readings allowed measuring the displacement of the mandible in the anteroposterior and lateral axes. Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey's test at 5 percent significance level. There was no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) among the three methods for measuring lateral displacement (A=0.38 ± 0.26, B=0.32 ± 0.25 and C=0.32 ± 0.23). For the anteroposterior displacement (A=2.76 ± 1.43, B=2.46 ± 1.48 and C=2.97 ± 1.51), the swallowing method (B) differed significantly from the others (p<0.05), but no significant difference (p>0.05) was found between chin point guidance (A) and bimanual manipulation (C). In conclusion, the swallowing method produced smaller mandibular posterior displacement than the other methods.

Este estudo comparou o deslocamento mandibular a partir de 3 métodos de registro da relação cêntrica usando um jig anterior associado com: (A) guia da ponta do mento; (B) deglutição grupo controle (C) manipulação bimanual. As moldagens dos arcos maxilares e mandibulares foram feitas com hidrocolóide irreversível. Os modelos de estudo de cada paciente foram obtidos e montados em máxima intercuspidação como uma posição de referência no microscópio. Foram obtidos 5 registros de cada método em 10 pacientes. Os modelos mandibulares foram reposicionados com os registros interpostos e novas medidas foram obtidas. A diferença entre as duas leituras permitiu a medida do deslocamento mandibular nos eixos ântero-posterior e laterais. ANOVA não demonstrou diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os 3 métodos em relação ao registro do deslocamento lateral (A = 0,38 ± 0,26, B = 0,32 ± 0,25 e C = 0,32 ± 0,23). Quanto ao deslocamento anteroposterior, ANOVA e o teste de Tukey (a=0,05) indicaram diferença estatisticamente significante entre os três métodos (A=2,76 ± 1,43, B=2,46 ± 1,48 e C=2,97 ± 1,51). Não houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre A e C. A deglutição propiciou menor deslocamento mandibular posterior que os outros métodos.

Eletromiografia do músculo masseter em casos de oclusäo normal e maloclusäo Classe I / Electromyography of the masseter muscle in normal occlusion and Angle Class I malocclusion

Os autores estudaram eletromiograficamente o músculo masseter em suas regiöes superior, média e inferior e verificaram a participaçäo de cada uma delas na realizaçäo de diferentes movimentos mandibulares, em indivíduos com oclusäo clinicamente normal e maloclusäo Classe I de Angle