RESUMEN
Introduction: The use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained popularity in orthodontics in the past decade. PRP is an autologous concentration of platelets rich in growth factors and is hypothesized to play a role in orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) due to its bone remodeling capacity. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of PRP on the rate of tooth movement in humans. Materials and Methods: Fourteen patients requiring bilateral extraction of upper first premolars were included in the study. PRP (×4) was prepared and injected in the alveolar mucosa, distal to canine on experimental sides. Canine retraction was initiated on the same day of PRP injection using NiTi closed coil springs on both sides. The amount of canine retraction was measured and compared between both sides at the 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th weeks by measuring the distance between lateral incisor and canine on the cast. Results: Results showed mean displacement of 1.355 mm, 1.232 mm, 1.191 mm, and 1.085 mm on experimental side and 1.265 mm, 1.126 mm, 1.031 mm, and 0.879 mm on control side at the 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th weeks, respectively. Although increased OTM (13.85% or 1.1 times faster) was observed on experimental side at all time intervals compared to the control group, the result was not statistically significant. Conclusion: 4× concentration of PRP does not accelerate OTM significantly.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Fixed functional appliances (FFA) have been used for correction class II malocclusion but cause proclination of teeth. Recently, few studies have advocated the use of skeletal anchorage along with FFAs to prevent this side effect. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the stress distribution and displacements produced by miniplate anchored Forsus-fatigue resistant device on the maxilla, mandible, and the dentition in a Class II malocclusion patient by finite element analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cone beam computed tomography of a class II division 1 patient indicated for FFA was used to construct a 3D finite element model using MIMICS 8.11 and Hypermesh 13.0 software. Various material properties, boundary, and loading conditions were then applied. The model was analyzed for principal stress and von Mises stress in maxilla, mandible, and their dentition using ANSYS 12.1 software. RESULTS: In the mandible, maximum principal and von Mises stresses were seen in the cortical bone area in the symphyseal region, whereas mandibular teeth showed comparatively lesser stresses. In the maxilla, higher principal and von Mises stresses were seen in the maxillary molar region compared to the maxillary cortical bone. The entire mandible was displaced antero-inferiorly, whereas the maxilla showed a postero-superior displacement. CONCLUSION: Using skeletally anchored FFA results in more stresses and displacements in the skeletal structures compared to the dentition.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of PowerScope and Forsus in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 2-arm parallel, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. A total of 28 Class II division 1 malocclusion patients indicated for treatment with fixed functional appliances were randomized and equally divided (n = 14) among PowerScope (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wis; mean age 14.11 ± 1.3 years) and Forsus (3M Unitek Corp, Monrovia, Calif; mean age 15.5 ± 1.1 years) groups. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of PowerScope and Forsus were compared. The secondary outcomes were evaluation of patient comfort and operator convenience. Randomization was accomplished with a 1:1 allocation ratio, and concealment was achieved by sealed opaque envelopes. The participants and data collectors were all blinded to study group allocation. Data were analyzed for 26 patients, 13 in each group, as one patient from each group discontinued treatment. Statistical comparisons were carried out using Student's t-tests and chi square tests ( P ≤ .05). RESULTS: A significantly greater mesial mandibular movement and improvement in sagittal skeletal relation were found in the Forsus patients ( P ≤ .05). The forward movement of the mandibular molar and incisors were greater in the PowerScope patients (2.3 mm and 2.80 mm) than in the Forsus patients (1.9 mm and 2.38 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Both PowerScope and Forsus are effective in correcting Class II malocclusion. The percentage of dentoalveolar effects in correcting Class II malocclusion is more for PowerScope when compared with Forsus. Patient comfort was the same with both appliances. This trial was registered.
