Three-dimensional assessment of accelerating orthodontic tooth movement-micro-osteoperforations vs piezocision: A randomized, parallel-group and split-mouth controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) vs piezocision (Piezo) in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement in adults. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: In this randomized, single-blinded, parallel-group, split-mouth clinical trial, 24 patients aged 15-40 years were recruited. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: MOPs and Piezo groups. One side of the maxilla was allocated randomly for treatment with one of these techniques, and the other side was treated conventionally to act as a split-mouth control. The rate of canine retraction was evaluated up to 3 months by three-dimensional digital models using a conventional labial appliance. Root resorption and bone height were evaluated using cone beam computed tomography. RESULTS: The MOPs and Piezo groups showed a significantly higher rate of tooth movement after 3 months on the experimental sides than the control sides. However, the net movements in the MOPs and Piezo groups did not reveal a higher rate of tooth movement. Similarly, the overall net movement was -0.32 ± 1.14 and -0.55 ± 0.89 mm for MOPs and Piezo, respectively (P = .606). Regarding root resorption, the overall changes in intra- or intergroup comparisons were insignificant. Decreased canine palatal bone height was reported on the experimental side of the Piezo group (P = .015) after 3 months, but the overall changes were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of MOPs and Piezo techniques in accelerating the orthodontic canine retraction was comparable to each other, and to the conventional methods. Neither technique caused root resorption or increased vertical bone loss.

Perception of Dental Students and Laypersons to Altered Dentofacial Aesthetics.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were to comprehensively assess the perception of altered dentofacial aesthetics between dental students and laypersons and to identify the threshold where different variables such gender and clinical training impair dentofacial attractiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten photographs were digitally manipulated involving three facial, two smile, four dental, and one gingival components. Fifty images were randomized and rated according to attractiveness by two groups dental students which subdivided into preclinical students and clinical students, and laypersons. The participants evaluated the original and manipulated images using a visual analog scale. The responses were then analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: The results showed threshold levels of noticeable differences between varying levels of discrepancy. The overall perception of aesthetics was high among dental clinical students with the highest perception toward facial profile and the lowest toward gingival margin height. Of the respondents, no differences were found in the perception between male and female participants. Dental students perceived aesthetic components more accurately than laypersons. CONCLUSION: Dental students group had a better perception of dentofacial aesthetics than included laypersons. Unlike gender, clinical training has a substantial positive effect on the assessment of beauty. Dental students sub divided into dental preclinical students and dental clinical students (clinical training is a variable of all subgroups).

Comparison between iRoot BP Plus (EndoSequence Root Repair Material) and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate as Pulp-capping Agents: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: iRoot BP Plus, also known as EndoSequence root repair material (EERM) is a premixed bioceramic thick/putty. According to its instruction manual, iRoot BP Plus is composed of tricalcium silicate, zirconium oxide, tantalum pentoxide, dicalcium silicate, calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate monobasic, and filler agents. This systematic review was carried out to evaluate and present the iRoot BP Plus material as a pulp-capping agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search for articles with the scope of the selection criteria undergoing for data extraction was conducted through electronic databases. Studies on evaluation of the cytotoxicity, bioactivity, and dentinal bridge formation of iRoot BP, iRoot BP Plus, ERRM putty, or ERRM paste (ERRM) on variant human cells were selected for in vitro models, and dentinal bridge formation on human and animals teeth for in vivo models were selected. RESULTS: A total of 22 articles were discussed in the review, 14 in vitro studies, five in vivo studies, and three articles with both studies. Methyl thiazol tetrazolium was the most used method for evaluating cytotoxicity. As for dentinal bridge formation, histological assessment and micro-Computed tomography were used. Human dental pulp cells (hDPCs) were the most investigated for in vitro models and rats for in vivo models. Except for one study, all studies involved in this review were primarily examining the material and comparing it to different types of mineral trioxide aggregate. CONCLUSION: iRoot BP, iRoot BP Plus, and ERRM are biocompatible materials that enhance hDPCs and other variant human cells proliferation, migration, attachment adhesion, mineralization, and dentinal bridge formation.

The Effectiveness of Micro-osteoperforations during Canine Retraction: A Three-dimensional Randomized Clinical Trial.

AIM: A major challenge in orthodontics is decreasing treatment time without compromising treatment outcome. The purpose of this split-mouth trial was to evaluate micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients of both genders were selected, age ranging between 15 and 40 years, with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. The participants in this trial with MOPs were randomly allocated to either the right or the left side, distal to the maxillary canine. First maxillary premolars were extracted as part of the treatment plan on both sides and then canine retraction was applied. Miniscrews were used to support anchorage. MOP side received (three small perforations) placed on the buccal bone, distal to the maxillary canine, on randomly selected side using an automated mini-implant driver and the other side was the control side. Blinding was used at the data collection and analysis stages. The primary outcome was the rate of canine retraction measured with a three-dimensional (3D) digital model from the baseline to the first 2 weeks superimposed at the rugae area from the baseline to the first, second, and third months. The following secondary outcomes were examined: anchorage loss, canine tipping, canine rotation, root resorption, plaque index, and gingival index. Pain level, pain interference with the patients' daily life, patients' satisfaction with the procedure and degree of ease, willingness to repeat the procedure, and recommendation to others were also evaluated. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed in the rates of tooth movement between the MOP and the control sides at all-time points (first month: P = 0.77; mean difference, 0.2 mm; 95% CI, -0.13, 0.18 mm; second month: P = 0.50; mean difference, -0.08 mm; 95% CI, -0.33, 0.16 mm; third month: P = 0.76; mean difference, -0.05 mm; 95% CI, -0.40, 0.29 mm). There were also no differences in anchorage loss, rotation, tipping, root resorption, plaque index, periodontal index, and pain perception between the MOP and control sides at any time point (P > 0.05). MOPs had no effect on the patients' daily life except for a feeling of swelling on the first day (P = 0.05). Level of satisfaction and degree of easiness of the procedure were high. CONCLUSION: According to our clinical trial, MOPs cannot help in speeding up a canine retraction.