Feasibility of mini-implant insertion between mesial and distal buccal roots of a maxillary first molar: A cone-beam computed tomography imaging study.

INTRODUCTION: Mini-implant insertion in the maxillary posterior region can be influenced by anatomic limitations, thus increasing the failure rate. We explored the feasibility of a new implantation site: the region between the mesial and distal buccal roots of the maxillary first molar. METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography data from 177 patients were collected from a database. The maxillary first molars were morphologically classified by analyzing the angle and morphology of the mesial and distal buccal roots. Next, 77 subjects were randomly selected from the 177 patients to measure and analyze the hard-tissue morphology in the maxillary posterior region. RESULTS: We devised the Morphological Classification on the Mesial and Distal Buccal Roots of Maxillary First Molar (MCBRMM), divided into 3 types: MCBRMM-I, II, and III. In all subjects, MCBRMM-I, II, and III accounted for 43%, 25%, and 32%, respectively. At 8 mm from the mesial cementoenamel junction of maxillary first molars, the interradicular distance between the maxillary first molar's mesiodistal buccal roots of MCBRMM-I was 2.6 mm, showing an upward trend from the cementoenamel junction to the apex. The distance from the buccal bone cortex to the palatal root was >9 mm. The buccal cortical thickness was >1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided a potential site for mini-implant insertion in the maxillary posterior region: the alveolar bone of maxillary first molars in MCBRMM-I.

Investigation of periodontal status and bacterial composition aroundmini-implants.

INTRODUCTION: Mini-implants are now widely used in orthodontic treatment. Soft-tissue inflammation around the mini-implant is an important factor affecting its stability. This study aimed to investigate the periodontal status and the bacterial composition around mini-implants. METHODS: A total of 79 mini-implants in 40 patients (aged 18-45 years) were evaluated in this study. The mini-implant probing depth (mPD), mini-implant gingival sulcus bleeding index (mBI), mini-implant plaque index (mPLI), and the composition of the supragingival and subgingival plaque around the mini-implants were recorded. After Congo red staining, the bacteria were classified and counted under a light microscope. RESULTS: The mPLI and mBI around mini-implants in the infrazygomatic crest were higher than those in the buccal shelf and interradicular area. The mPD was higher on the coronal site of the mini-implant than on the mesial, distal, and apical sites in the infrazygomatic crest. The mPLI around the mini-implant was positively correlated with the mBI, and the mBI was positively correlated with the mPD. The supragingival and subgingival bacterial composition around the mini-implants was similar to that of natural teeth. Compared with supragingival bacterial composition, the subgingival bacteria of mini-implants had a significantly lower proportion of cocci and a higher proportion of bacilli and spirochetes. CONCLUSIONS: The bacteria composition of the plaque and the location are important factors in the inflammation around mini-implants. Similar to natural teeth, mini-implants require health maintenance to prevent inflammation of the surrounding soft tissue and maintain stability.

Temporomandibular Joint Osseous Morphology of Class I and Class II Malocclusions in the Normal Skeletal Pattern: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study.

(1) Background-The aim of the present study was to evaluate the correlation between the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) osseous morphology of normal skeletal pattern individuals with different dental malocclusions by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). (2) Methods-The CBCT images of bilateral TMJs in 67 subjects with skeletal class I and average mandibular angle (26 males and 41 females, age range 20-49 years) were evaluated in this study. The subjects were divided into class I, class II division 1, and class II division 2 according to the molar relationship and retroclination of the maxillary incisors. Angular and linear measurements of TMJ were evaluated and the differences between the groups were statistically analyzed. (3) Results-Intragroup comparisons showed statistical differences for articular eminence inclination, the width of the glenoid fossa, the ratio of the width of the glenoid fossa to the depth of the glenoid fossa, the condylar angle, and the intercondylar angle between the malocclusion groups. The measurements of the glenoid fossa shape showed no significant difference between the left and right sides. Females showed more differences in the morphological parameters of TMJ between the three malocclusion groups than the males. (4) Conclusion-The present study revealed differences in the TMJ osseous morphology between dental class I and class II malocclusions in the normal skeletal pattern.

Is There an Association between Temporomandibular Disorders and Articular Eminence Inclination? A Systematic Review.

(1) Background: In order to determine the correlation between the inclination of articular eminence (AEI) and the development of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), a systematic review was performed. (2) Methods: A systematic literature research was conducted between 1946 and January 2020, based on the following electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, Scope, SciELO, and Lilacs. Observational studies, analytical case-control studies, and cohort studies written in English were identified. The articles were selected and analyzed by two authors independently. The PICO format was used to analyze the studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to verify the quality of the evidence. (3) Results: Sixteen articles were included in this review, ten case-control studies and six cohort studies. Eight articles (50%) established a positive relation between AEI and TMDs and eight (50%) did not. The scientific quality was medium-low, mainly influenced by the exposure to the risk of bias and the lack of clinical methods with adequate consistency and sensitivity on the diagnosis of TMDs. (4) Conclusions: It is controversial to establish a causal relationship between the TMDs and the AEI in the field of stomatology, due to limited and inconclusive evidence. However, it is suggested that the AEI defined by some specific methods may be associated with some special pathological stages of TMDs. High-quality prospective studies are required to draw any definitive conclusions.

Effects of various debonding and adhesive clearance methods on enamel surface: an in vitro study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate orthodontic debonding methods by comparing the surface roughness and enamel morphology of teeth after applying two different debonding methods and three different polishing techniques. METHODS: Forty eight human maxillary premolars, extracted for orthodontic reasons, were randomly divided into three groups. Brackets were bonded to teeth with RMGIC (Fuji Ortho LC, GC, Tokyo, Japan) (two groups, n = 18 each) after acid etching (30s), light cured for 40 s, exposed to thermocycling, then underwent 2 different bracket debonding methods: debonding pliers (Shinye, Hangzhou, China) or enamel chisel (Jinzhong, Shanghai, China); the third group (n = 12) comprised of untreated controls, with normal enamel surface roughness. In each debonded group, three cleanup techniques (n = 6 each) were tested, including (I) diamond bur (TC11EF, MANI, Tochigi, Japan) and One-Gloss (Midi, Shofu, Kyoto, Japan), (II) a Super-Snap disk (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan), and (III) One-Gloss polisher. The debonding methods were compared using the modified adhesive remnant index (ARI, 1-5). Cleanup efficiencies were assessed by recording operating times. Enamel surfaces were qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and surface roughness tester, respectively. Two surface roughness variables were evaluated: Ra (average roughness) and Rz (10-point height of irregularities). RESULTS: The ARI scores of debonded teeth were similar with debonding pliers and enamel chisel (Chi-square = 2.19, P > 0.05). There were significant differences between mean operating time in each group (F = 52.615, P < 0.01). The diamond bur + One-Gloss took the shortest operating time (37.92 ± 3.82 s), followed by the Super-Snap disk (56.67 ± 7.52 s), and the One-Gloss polisher (63.50 ± 6.99 s). SEM appearance provided by the One-Gloss polisher was the closest to the intact enamel surface, and surface roughness (Ra: 0.082 ± 0.046 µm; Rz: 0.499 ± 0.200 µm) was closest to the original enamel (Ra: 0.073 ± 0.048 µm; Rz: 0.438 ± 0.213 µm); the next best was the Super-Snap disk (Ra: 0.141 ± 0.073 µm; Rz: 1.156 ± 0.755 µm); then, the diamond bur + One-Gloss (Ra: 0.443 ± 0.172 µm; Rz: 2.202 ± 0.791 µm). CONCLUSIONS: Debonding pliers were safer than enamel chisels for removing brackets. Cleanup with One-Gloss polisher provided enamel surfaces closest to the intact enamel, but took more time, and Super-Snap disks provided acceptable enamel surfaces and efficiencies. The diamond bur was not suitable for removing adhesive remnant.