Digital setup accuracy for moderate crowding correction with fixed orthodontic appliances: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of a semi-automatic 3D digital setup process in predicting the orthodontic treatment outcome achieved by labial fixed appliances. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five adult patients (18 to 24 years old) with class I malocclusion and moderate crowding were prospectively enrolled and received treatment on both jaws through the straight-wire technique. Prior to treatment commencement, a semi-automatic digital setup simulating the predicted treatment outcome was performed for each patient through Orthoanalyzer software (3Shape®, Copenhagen, Denmark) to obtain the prediction model. This was compared to the final outcome model through 3D superimposition methods. Metric variables and inspection of color-coded distance maps were used to detect how accurately the digital setup predicts the actual treatment outcome. RESULTS: The mean absolute distances (MAD) between the superimposed dental arches of the predicted and the final models were: 0.77 ± 0.13 mm following superimposition on the palate, 0.52 ± 0.06 mm following superimposition on the maxillary dental arch, and 0.55 ± 0.15 mm following superimposition on the mandibular dental arch. The MAD at the palatal reference area was 0.09 ± 0.04 mm. Visualization of color-coded distance maps indicated that the digital setup accurately predicted the final teeth position in a few cases. Almost half of the cases had posteriorly wider upper and lower dental arches and palatally/lingually positioned or inclined anterior teeth, whereas the rest still showed errors within 2-3 mm, distributed over the entire dental arches with no distinct pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of semi-automatic prediction of the labial fixed appliance treatment outcome in Class I cases with moderate crowding is not yet sufficient. While average measures showed deviations less than 1 mm, examination of individual color-coded distance maps revealed significant disparities between the simulated and the actual results.

Skeletal and dental effects of function-generating bite appliance compared to rapid palatal expander and untreated controls.

INTRODUCTION: Maxillary expansion is a fundamental interceptive orthodontic treatment, which can be achieved through either a rapid expansion protocol or functional devices. However, no data exist about the efficacy of functional devices in achieving skeletal expansion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of the rapid palatal expander (RPE) and the function-generating bite type M (FGB-M) on the transversal dimension of the maxilla, and on the maxillary and mandibular dental arch width. METHODS: One hundred eighty-one skeletal Class I patients, aged between 6 and 12 years and with a cervical vertebral maturation stage II or III, with maxillary transversal deficiency were retrospectively enrolled; among these 55 were treated with FGB-M, 73 were treated with RPE and 51 were untreated subjects retrieved from historical databases. The pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) frontal cephalograms were retrieved, and the maxillary and mandibular widths, and the distance between upper and lower first molars were measured. T1-T0 interval was of 17.3 months (RPE), 24.6 months (FGB-M) and 18.2 months (controls). RESULTS: The statistical analysis showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the RPE and FGB-M groups regarding skeletal and dental expansion, while the untreated control group differed significantly from the other two groups. CONCLUSION: The comparison between patients treated with RPE and FGB-M showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the RPE and FGB-M groups regarding the amount of skeletal expansion and dental arch width, suggesting that both appliances can be used to achieve similar results.

Long-term profile attractiveness of patients with Class I and II malocclusion treated with and without extractions: A 35-year follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the profile attractiveness in subjects treated with and without extractions after the long-term 35-year follow-up, according to laypeople, dentists, and orthodontists. METHODS: A total of 40 patients with Class I and II malocclusion were divided into 2 groups, according to the treatment protocol: extraction (E) group, extractions of 4 premolars (n = 24), with mean pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2), and long-term posttreatment (T3) ages of 13.13, 15.50 and 49.56 years, respectively. The mean treatment time (T2 - T1) was 2.37 years, and the long-term follow-up (T3 - T2) was 34.19. Nonextraction (NE) group (n = 16), with mean ages at T1, T2, and T3 of 13.21, 15.07, and 50.32 years, respectively. The mean (T2 - T1) was 1.86 years, and the (T3 - T2) was 35.25 years. Lateral cephalograms were used to perform profile facial silhouettes, and an online evaluation was performed by 72 laypeople, 63 dentists, and 65 orthodontists, rating the attractiveness from 1 (least attractive) to 10 (most attractive). The intragroup comparison was performed with the repeated measures analysis of variance and Tukey tests. Intergroup comparison was performed with t tests, 1-way analysis of variance, and Tukey tests. RESULTS: The E group had a longer treatment time than that of the NE group. In the pretreatment, posttreatment, and long-term posttreatment stages, the E and NE groups showed similar profile attractiveness. Laypersons and dentists were more critical than orthodontists. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term posttreatment follow-up, profile attractiveness was similar in patients treated with and without extractions.

Treatment effectiveness of young adults using clear aligners versus buccal fixed appliances in class I malocclusion with first premolar extraction using the ABO-Objective Grading System: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the clear aligners with the traditional fixed appliances in the treatment of premolars extraction complex cases using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-centre, 2-parallel groups RCT with two arms. Forty severe crowding patients (14 males, 26 females; mean age: 21.40±2.42) who required four first premolars extraction were included and randomly allocated into two treatment groups: clear aligners therapy group (CAT), and fixed appliances therapy group (FAT). Cases complexities were measured on pre-treatment records using the Discrepancy index (DI). Post-treatment records were evaluated using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS). Two sample t-tests and Fisher's Exact tests were used to test for significant differences between the two groups. The statistical significance was set at P < 0.006 using Bonferroni's correction. RESULTS: For the DI, the mean scores were 32.25 (± 4.33) in the CAT group and 33 (± 7.92) in the FAT group. In the CAT group, the total OGS score ranged between 6-33 points with an average of 17.50(± 7.41), whereas the total score in the FAT group went between 4-30 points with an average of 12.89 (± 6.31) with no significant differences between the two groups (P=0.05). When comparison of the successful cases between the two groups was made, 11 cases received passing scores, and 9 cases received failing scores in the CAT group. Whereas in the FAT group, 17 cases received passing scores, and 3 received a failing score. No statistically significant differences were found in the passing rates between of the CAT and FAT groups (P = 0.421). CONCLUSIONS: According to the ABO-OGS total scores, there was no significant difference between the clear aligners and fixed appliances in the treatment of class I severe crowding cases with first premolars extraction in young adults. There were no differences between the two techniques in the OGS components scores except for the occlusal contacts, which were significantly better with the fixed appliances. When comparing the number of successful and failed cases between the two groups, no significant differences were noted, with the fixed appliances having a 30% higher success rate than the clear aligners, which must be considered clinically when choosing between these two techniques in the complex orthodontic cases treatment.

The predictability of maxillary curve of Spee leveling with the Invisalign appliance.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the predictability of the Invisalign appliance (Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) in leveling the maxillary curve of Spee (COS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective sample of adult subjects treated with the Invisalign appliance between 2013 and 2019 were selected. Patients were treated nonextraction in the maxillary arch and had either Angle Class I or II malocclusions with a minimum of 14 aligners with no bite ramps. Initial, predicted, and actual outcomes were analyzed with Geomagic Control X software (version 2017.0.3; 3D Systems, Cary, NC). RESULTS: A sample of 53 cases satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria. Paired t-tests demonstrated a significant difference between mean predicted and actual maxillary COS leveling with a shortfall of 0.11 mm (SD = 0.37; P = .033). Planned intrusion tended to be more accurate posteriorly with an overexpression of 117% for the first molars. Planned extrusion was the least accurate, with the mid-arch demonstrating expressions of -14% to -48%. These teeth intruded despite a prescribed extrusive movement. CONCLUSIONS: The Invisalign appliance did not accurately predict maxillary COS leveling. Planned intrusive movements were overcorrected, and planned extrusive movements were either undercorrected or resulted in intrusion. This effect was most apparent for the upper first molar, which expressed 117% and -48% of planned intrusion and extrusion, respectively.

Evaluation of the predicted vs. achieved occlusal outcomes with the Invisalign® appliance: A retrospective investigation of adult patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between occlusal contacts, overbite, transverse expansion, and the buccolingual inclination of the teeth with reference to the predicted treatment outcomes and achieved outcomes related to the use of the Invisalign® appliance in mild-to-moderate Class I malocclusions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The occlusal contacts, overbite, the buccolingual inclination and transverse expansion of the maxillary arch of adult patients satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria were measured at the initial (pre-treatment), predicted, and achieved treatment stages using metrology software. Pearson correlation coefficients and regression equations were calculated to determine the association between the initial, predicted and achieved changes in occlusal contact against the other variables. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients, who commenced treatment between 2013 and 2018 and satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria were evaluated. An overall loss of posterior contact was recorded and highlighted by a significantly greater loss of contact from the maxillary buccal occlusal surfaces compared to the palatal occlusal surfaces. The mean [SD] achieved overbite outcome (2.94mm [1.17]) was greater than the predicted (1.74mm [0.87), P<0.001). The buccolingual inclination was significantly increased for the lateral incisors and first and second molars despite a predicted decrease (P≤0.007). Achieved transverse expansion showed significant variation from the predicted. The loss of posterior occlusal contact was correlated with the buccolingual inclination (r=0.70) and transverse expansion (r=0.74) of the posterior teeth. CONCLUSIONS: In mild-to-moderate Class I malocclusions, treatment using the Invisalign® appliance resulted in an overall loss of posterior contact. The loss of occlusal contact was correlated with deficiencies in achieved buccolingual inclination and transverse expansion of the posterior teeth. Planned bodily expansion was ineffective as most expansion occurred due to unplanned buccal tipping.

Dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes after treatment of crowding with premolar extractions: a 50-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The long-term effects on dentofacial morphology of interceptive treatment with premolar extractions, in the absence of subsequent orthodontic treatment, have not been fully explored. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate the effects of premolar extractions (without subsequent orthodontic treatment) on the dentoskeletal and soft tissue profile of patients aged between 12 and 62 years with Class I malocclusion with severe crowding, as compared to untreated controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Extraction group (N = 30 with Class I crowding malocclusion) had their first premolars removed in early adolescence without subsequent orthodontic treatment. The Control group included 30 untreated subjects with Class I normal occlusion. Cephalograms were taken at 12 (T1), 15 (T2), 30 (T3), and 62 (T4) years of age. A superimposition-based cephalometric method was used to assess the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the Extraction and Control groups in terms of skeletal sagittal relation, incisor inclination, and protrusion, or most of the soft tissue parameters throughout the observation period. However, significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to the vertical relations in T2-T3, such that the Extraction group showed more-pronounced decreases in the ML/NSL, ML/NL, and Gonial angles and more-pronounced increases in facial heights. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Treatment for subjects with Class I malocclusion with severe crowding by the extraction of four premolars, without subsequent orthodontic treatment, does not affect the long-term dentoskeletal and soft tissue profile, as compared to an untreated Control group. The degree of crowding, rather than changes in dentofacial morphology, is crucial in deciding on extraction therapy.

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.

Therapeutic approach in Class I malocclusion with impacted maxillary canines.

OBJECTIVE: To emphasize the importance of diagnosis and discuss the therapeutic approaches that can be used in the orthodontic treatment of Class I malocclusion associated with two impacted maxillary canines. The opening of spaces for traction of these teeth by means of rapid maxillary expansion or extraction of maxillary premolars was contraindicated in the case reported. Therefore, it was decided to open spaces with projection of incisors. RESULTS: The obtained results were satisfactory, as a good occlusion was obtained, with adequate functional guides, as well as an improvement in the facial appearance. CONCLUSION: The projection of the incisors prior to traction of the impacted maxillary canines proved to be a valid option in the case described. Ten years after completion of treatment, the case is stable, maintaining periodontal health.

Dental, skeletal, and soft-tissue changes in adult orthodontic patients treated with premolar extraction and nonextraction: A cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Various treatment modalities exist to improve and correct Class I malocclusion. This study evaluated the dental, skeletal, and soft-tissue changes in patients treated by premolar extraction (PME) and nonextraction. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted, including subjects ideally planned for PME. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were compared among the 2 groups. The American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) was used to score the posttreatment casts, and soft-tissue profile silhouettes were judged by a panel of orthodontists to evaluate the improvement among the 2 groups. Comparisons between the 2 groups were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Spearman correlation was used to study the correlation between the assessment methodologies. RESULTS: Highly significant differences were observed between the 2 groups for ABO-OGS scores (P ≤0.001) and profile silhouette assessment (P ≤0.001). Compared with posttreatment cephalometric readings, highly significant differences were seen for the dental variables: SN-U1, IMPA, and interincisal angle (P ≤0.001). Statistically significant differences were seen for all soft-tissue cephalometric variables. Highly significant moderate to negative correlation (r = -0.410, P ≤0.001) was seen between profile silhouettes and ABO-OGS alignment scores. Highly significant strong negative correlation (r = -0.642, P ≤0.001) was seen between profile silhouettes and the lower lip. CONCLUSION: Dental and soft-tissue changes were highly significant and were found to be in the ideal range when treated with PME. However, PME and nonextraction treatment modalities did not significantly affect the skeletal parameters as seen on the lateral cephalogram.

Comparison of treatment outcomes as assessed by 3 indexes in subjects with Class I malocclusion treated by 3 different methods: A cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Various treatment modalities exist to improve and correct Class I malocclusion. This study was conducted to evaluate the outcomes of nonextraction (NE), premolar extraction (PME), and mandibular incisor extraction (MIE) treatment modalities in subjects presenting with Class I malocclusion. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital using pretreatment and posttreatment dental casts along with intraoral photographs of 90 orthodontic subjects. These subjects were divided equally into NE, PME, and MIE groups and scored using the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need, Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON), and peer assessment rating (PAR) indexes. Nonparametric tests were run to compare pretreatment and posttreatment scores and to evaluate the percentage and categorical changes for the treatment modalities. Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (P ≤0.001) were seen between the pretreatment and posttreatment scores for all modalities. Statistically significant improvements were seen between the 3 treatment modalities for the PAR (P = 0.010) and ICON (P = 0.003) indexes. Significant categorical improvements were found for the Aesthetic Component (AC) (P = 0.012) among the 3 groups. Pairwise comparison revealed significant differences between the NE and MIE groups (ICON, P = 0.001; AC, P = 0.018) and PME and MIE groups (PAR, P = 0.002; ICON, P = 0.007; AC, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Posttreatment scores of all indexes were reduced, with significant differences found among the treatment modalities for all except the Dental Health Component index. The pairwise comparison revealed suboptimal occlusal results with the MIE group. Good occlusal and esthetic treatment outcomes were achieved with the PME and NE groups.

Factors affecting the stability of maxillary extraction site closure.

INTRODUCTION: A side effect observed in cases treated with extractions is the instability of orthodontic space closure. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of gingival invagination, presence of third molars and facial pattern, on the stability of orthodontic space-closure in the maxillary arch. METHODS: Ninety-nine subjects (41 male and 58 female) with Class I malocclusion treated with four premolars extraction were evaluated. Extraction sites reopening and gingival invaginations were evaluated in scanned dental models in the posttreatment and 1-year posttreatment stages (mean age 16.1 years). Third molars presence was evaluated at 1-year posttreatment panoramic radiographs, and the facial pattern (SN.GoGn) was evaluated in the initial lateral headfilms. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the influence of the aforementioned independent variables on the frequency of extraction space reopening. RESULTS: Space reopening was observed in 20.20% of the subjects 1-year post-debonding. Gingival invaginations were present in 25.73% of quadrants after debonding and in 22.80% 1-year posttreatment. The mean pre-treatment SN.GoGn was 35.64 degrees (SD=5.26). No significant influence was observed of the three independent variables on the instability of extraction site closure. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of gingival invaginations, third molars and facial growth pattern do not seem to influence maxillary extraction sites reopening.

Potentialities and limitations of computer-aided design and manufacturing technology in the nonextraction treatment of Class I malocclusion.

INTRODUCTION: Computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems have assisted orthodontists to position brackets virtually. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if a CAD-CAM system could predict the orthodontic treatment outcome of patients with Angle Class I malocclusion with mild crowding or spacing and with no need for orthodontic extraction. METHODS: Using the American Board of Orthodontics Cast-Radiograph Evaluation (ABO-CRE) and color map superimposition, the treated occlusion was compared with the virtual final occlusion of 24 young adults with Class I occlusion. Using eXceed software (eXceed, Witten, Germany), we created the final occlusion prediction for each patient (virtual set up group). A digital model of the final occlusion of each patient was created (treated occlusion group). ABO-CRE score was used to compare groups. In addition, a color map was created for all subjects to access the mean and range values between the virtual set up model and treated occlusion model of each patient. Random and systematic errors were calculated. In addition, chi-square and t test were used. RESULTS: Comparisons between virtual set up occlusion and treated occlusion showed statistically significant differences in 3 out of 7 measurements: interproximal contact score was larger for treated than virtual occlusion (0.45 mm and 0.04 mm, respectively), and the treated occlusion showed larger values than the virtual occlusion for occlusal contacts (14.13 mm and 7.62 mm, respectively) and overjet (7.37 mm and 0.66 mm, respectively). Although the treated occlusion showed a larger score than the virtual occlusion (50.41 mm and 34.58 mm, respectively), there is no significant difference between both. Root angulation decreased (from 1.95 ± 1.29 to 0.65 ± 0.71) because of the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: ABO-CRE overall score presents no difference between groups. In addition, CAD-CAM setup occlusion closely predicts the final teeth alignment and leveling with interarch relationships showing less ABO-CRE score deduction.

Factors affecting the stability of maxillary extraction site closure

ABSTRACT Introduction: A side effect observed in cases treated with extractions is the instability of orthodontic space closure. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of gingival invagination, presence of third molars and facial pattern, on the stability of orthodontic space-closure in the maxillary arch. Methods: Ninety-nine subjects (41 male and 58 female) with Class I malocclusion treated with four premolars extraction were evaluated. Extraction sites reopening and gingival invaginations were evaluated in scanned dental models in the posttreatment and 1-year posttreatment stages (mean age 16.1 years). Third molars presence was evaluated at 1-year posttreatment panoramic radiographs, and the facial pattern (SN.GoGn) was evaluated in the initial lateral headfilms. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the influence of the aforementioned independent variables on the frequency of extraction space reopening. Results: Space reopening was observed in 20.20% of the subjects 1-year post-debonding. Gingival invaginations were present in 25.73% of quadrants after debonding and in 22.80% 1-year posttreatment. The mean pre-treatment SN.GoGn was 35.64 degrees (SD=5.26). No significant influence was observed of the three independent variables on the instability of extraction site closure. Conclusions: The presence of gingival invaginations, third molars and facial growth pattern do not seem to influence maxillary extraction sites reopening.

RESUMO Introdução: Um efeito colateral observado nos casos tratados com extrações é a instabilidade do fechamento ortodôntico do espaço. Objetivo: O objetivo do presente estudo foi investigar a influência da invaginação gengival, da presença de terceiros molares e do padrão facial na estabilidade do fechamento ortodôntico dos locais de extração na arcada superior. Métodos: Noventa e nove indivíduos (41 homens e 58 mulheres) com má oclusão de Classe I tratados com extração de quatro pré-molares foram avaliados. A reabertura dos locais de extração e as invaginações gengivais foram avaliadas nos modelos dentários digitalizados nos estágios pós-tratamento e um ano pós-tratamento (idade média de 16,1 anos). A presença dos terceiros molares foi avaliada em radiografias panorâmicas de um ano pós-tratamento, e o padrão facial (SN.GoGn) foi avaliado nas radiografias laterais iniciais. Análise de regressão logística múltipla foi utilizada para estimar a influência das variáveis independentes citadas na frequência de reabertura do espaço de extração. Resultados: A reabertura do espaço foi observada em 20,20% dos sujeitos um ano após a remoção do aparelho. Invaginações gengivais estiveram presentes em 25,73% dos quadrantes após a remoção do aparelho e em 22,80% após um ano pós-tratamento. O SN.GoGn pré-tratamento médio foi de 35,64 graus (DP = 5,26). Não foi observada influência significativa das três variáveis independentes sobre a instabilidade do fechamento do local de extração. Conclusões: A presença de invaginações gengivais, terceiros molares e padrão de crescimento facial não parece influenciar na reabertura dos locais de extração maxilar.

Lower incisor extraction therapy in a complex case with an ankylosed tooth in an adult patient: A case report.

This case report describes a successful orthodontic therapy of an adult female treated by mandibular central incisor extraction and vestibular fixed appliances. The patient presented a skeletal Class I with normodivergent facial pattern, Class II subdivision dental relationship, extremely deep Curve of Spee and severe overbite. Moreover, during the treatment, the upper left first molar does not respond to orthodontic forces due to tooth ankylosis, augmenting the difficulty of this case. Despite this, a good occlusal relationship on both sites and an optimal extraoral outcome have been achieved after a 26-months therapy. To our knowledge no case report with such entity of Curve of Spee with contemporary tooth ankylosis has been presented.

Orthodontic treatment of a nine-year-old patient with hypophosphatemic rickets diagnosed since the age of two: A case report.

Hypophosphatemic rickets (HR) is a genetic disorder with various types of inheritance. It results mainly from defects in factors that control mineral ion homeostasis such as 1,25(OH)2D (Calcitriol) and FGF23 (Fibroblast Growth Factor 23). The existing bibliography regarding orthodontic treatment in patients with hypophosphatemic rickets is extremely limited. The aim of this case report is to describe the orthodontic treatment of a 9-year old Caucasian female patient suffering from HR. The patient presented a healthy late mixed dentition and periodontium. She suffered from a mild Class III maxillary skeletal pattern. There was a bilateral posterior crossbite, short lingual frenulum, a right maxillary mesioposition with a Class II subdivision on this side and a moderate space deficiency in the dental arches. The disorder was controlled by medication. In specific, patient was taking 1.5mL of phosphate four times per day, 0.3mL of calcitriol twice per day and 50,000 IU of Vitamin D3 on a weekly basis. Given the Class III skeletal pattern, the medical condition and the absence of relevant bibliography, it was decided to perform maxillary expansion, facemask traction and orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. By the end of treatment, Class I canine and molar relationships were achieved, overjet and overbite were corrected and space deficiency was addressed in both arches. PAR index was 27 at the beginning of treatment and became 2 by the end of treatment (92.5% correction). The aesthetic component of IOTN was 4 and changed to 1, while the dental component used to be 5i and became 2g. With regards to retention, upper and lower fixed retainers from canine to canine and upper and lower vacuum formed appliances were used. In conclusion, a patient with controlled HR was orthodontically treated in a successful way. Orthodontic therapy was performed in a minimally invasive manner. Thus, HR does not constitute a contraindication for orthodontic treatment, when the disorder is kept under control.

Management of an adult patient with missing one mandibular incisor, severe overjet, and midline discrepancy with asymmetric extraction, lingual appliance, and skeletal anchorage: A case report.

This case report describes the lingual orthodontic treatment of an adult patient with Angle Class I malocclusion, agenesis of mandibular right central incisor, severe overjet and deep overbite, excessive proclination of maxillary and mandibular incisors, and midline discrepancy. Because of unique presentation, symmetric extraction could not be performed in the lower arch of this 34-year-old patient. She was treated with three premolar extractions and absolute anchorage with temporary anchorage devices for maximum retraction of upper anterior teeth. To correct the midline deviation and Bolton tooth-size discrepancy, the mandibular right lateral incisor, canine, and premolars were reshaped to reduce the mesiodistal width. The treatment approach greatly improved the patient's facial and dental appearance and provided a stable occlusion.

European College of Orthodontics. Commission of Titularisation. Clinical case No. 191101.

DATE OF BIRTH: 29/07/1993; gender: female. PRE-TREATMENT DOCUMENTS: 19 years 2 months old: 29/07/1993. DIAGNOSIS: Skeletal class II with mandibular laterognathia and retrusion, hypodivergent facial pattern; class II division 1, transverse maxillary deficiency with left unilateral posterior cross bite; missing teeth before treatment: 18 28 38 48. TREATMENT PLANNING: Orthosurgical treatment (bimaxillary surgery); Bimaxillary lingual fixed appliances. DURATION OF ACTIVE TREATMENT: 2 years. POST-TREATMENT DOCUMENTS: 22 years 5 months old; 09/01/2015. POST-RETENTION DOCUMENTS: 05/01/2016; 23 years 5 months old. RETENTION PERIOD: 3 years.

European College of Orthodontics. Commission of titularisation. Case no: 191055.

Date of birth: 03/27/1998; gender: female. PRE-TREATMENT DOCUMENTS: 29 years old; 3/2009. DIAGNOSIS: Angle malocclusion: Cl III cuspid on the right side and cl I on the left side, clI molar right and left. Missing teeth before treatment: 14, 23. TREATMENT PLANNING: Extractions: 63, 23, 34, 44, totally customized and individualized bimaxillary lingual appliance and TAD between 15 and 16. Beginning of phase I: 29 years old; 3/2009. POST-TREATMENT DOCUMENTS: 32 years old; 03/2012. Treatment duration: 36 months. POST-RETENTION DOCUMENTS (MINIMUM 1 YEAR): 41 years old; 04/2019. Retention duration: 9 years and still continued.