Accelarated Orthodontic Treatment Using Microosteoperforations: A Comparative Study.

Background: Accelerated orthodontic treatment has gained popularity in recent years as patients seek shorter treatment durations. Microosteoperforations (MOPs) have emerged as a minimally invasive technique to expedite tooth movement. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of MOPs in accelerating orthodontic treatment with conventional methods. Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 60 orthodontic patients requiring dental alignment. The participants were divided into two groups: Group A (MOPs) and Group B (conventional orthodontic treatment). In Group A, MOPs were performed at the beginning of the treatment. Both groups received monthly orthodontic adjustments. Treatment duration, rate of tooth movement, and patient discomfort were measured and compared between the two groups. Results: The study found that in Group A, the treatment duration was reduced by 30% compared to Group B (P < 0.05). The rate of tooth movement in the MOPs group was 1.5 times higher than the conventional group (P < 0.01). Additionally, patient-reported discomfort levels were similar between the two groups. No adverse events related to MOPs were observed during the study. Conclusion: MOPs significantly accelerate orthodontic treatment, reducing treatment duration by 30% and increasing the rate of tooth movement by 1.5 times compared to conventional methods. Importantly, MOPs are well-tolerated by patients, making them a valuable option for expediting orthodontic treatment with minimal discomfort. This study highlights the potential benefits of integrating MOPs into orthodontic practice to improve treatment efficiency and patient satisfaction.

In Vitro Assessment of Different Toothbrush Designs on Enamel Surface Abrasion: A Profilometric Study.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of three different toothbrush designs on enamel surface abrasion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty intact freshly extracted maxillary central incisors were considered for the study. All of the extracted teeth's surfaces were severely trimmed, leaving only the labial surface intact. In the trial, a conventional teeth-whitening dentifrice slurry was utilized. A brushing model was created to deliver uniform force in unidirectional motion. Dontrix Gauge was used to control the tension of the spring. The force was kept constant at 180 ± 20 g. The mounted enamel samples were separated into three groups (20 samples each) at random: group A: toothbrushes have a flat trim bristle design, group B: toothbrushes have a zigzag pattern, and group C: toothbrushes have a bi-level bristle design. For 2 weeks, each sample was brushed twice daily for 2 minutes. A profilometer was used to measure the average surface roughness. RESULTS: After toothbrushing, the maximum mean surface roughness score was found in zigzag pattern group (2.10 ± 0.23), followed by bi-level bristle design group (2.06 ± 0.12) and the least was in the flat trim bristle design group (1.96 ± 0.09). There was a significant difference between the different toothbrush bristle pattern groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: On conclusion, the results of this study showed that, in comparison to toothbrushes with zigzag patterns and bi-level bristle designs, flat trim toothbrush bristle designs cause the least amount of surface abrasion and are relatively safe to use. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Toothbrushing with toothpaste contributes significantly to dental abrasion. A variety of parameters, including toothpaste abrasivity and concentration, brushing frequency, brushing length, brushing force, and toothbrush bristle stiffness, have the potential to influence the abrasion process of dental hard tissue.

Accuracy and Self-Confidence Level of Freehand Drilling and Dynamic Navigation System of Dental Implants: An In Vitro Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The impact of the experience of the clinician on learning a new skill or equipment was still an intriguing subject. The goal of this research is to determine the accuracy level of a dynamic navigation system to that of freehand drilling by expert and novice practitioners with varied levels of experience. Additionally, the duration of the surgical procedure and the self-confidence level of the surgeons were also evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An analog impression of the patient was used to make 20 polyurethane simulation models of the maxilla. Five expert and five inexperienced surgeons prepared the site and placed the implants at random on ten models each. Two different techniques were used to insert dental implants: freehand and dynamic navigation systems. Dental implants were placed in Group 1 utilizing a computer-assisted dynamic navigation device. The implants in Group 2 were secured using free-hand drilling. The dental implants were inserted first in the maxillary right first molar, then in the maxillary right lateral incisor, and the maxillary left second premolar. Preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans were superimposed by employing the Evalunav software and contrasted. The coronal 3-D, apex 3-D, apex vertical depth, and angular deviations for both procedures were evaluated. A pre-tested self-confidence questionnaire was also administered to assess the self-confidence of the practitioners. The duration of the surgical time was also documented for each strategy. The t-test was used to measure the difference in accuracy and confidence levels between freehand and dynamic navigation systems among expert and novice surgeons using SPSS software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS: A total of 60 implants were used (three insertion sites, two methods, and 10 practitioners). Each of the five expert and novice clinicians implanted 15 implants (five models each). Except for entry 3-D, there was a statistically significant difference between the two approaches in all of the primary outcome variables. The apex 3-D (5.89±1.08 mm) and apex vertical (2.08±1.27 mm) dimensions of the dynamic navigation system were significantly smaller than those of the freehand drilling approach (p<005). Dynamic navigation and freehand drilling had angular deviations of 7.16±1.76ᵒ and 9.06±2.18ᵒ, respectively (p=0.0004). The apex vertical deviation was reduced in the navigation technique (2.07±1.5 mm) than in the freehand drilling (2.86±1.4 mm) by experienced practitioners (p=0.04). The difference in time between the two procedures was determined to be statistically highly significant (p<0.001) by both expert and novice surgeons. Furthermore, when contrasting with experienced practitioners, novice practitioners had an overall increase in surgery time (p<0.001) for both approaches. CONCLUSION: The current in vitro study found that the dynamic navigation system enables more accurate implant placement than the freehand drilling technique, irrespective of the experience of the surgeons. However, this technique appears to benefit novice practitioners more, as they can profoundly minimize their deviations while accomplishing results comparable to those of expert surgeons.