Mandibular molar protraction: A comparison between fixed functional appliances and temporary anchorage devices.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the efficiency of temporary anchorage devices (TADs) and fixed functional appliances (FFAs) for mandibular molar protraction. METHODS: Orthodontic records of 1050 consecutively treated patients with molar protraction were screened. Thirty-six records (22 females and 14 males; mean age, 17.4 years) were divided into two groups: TAD (21 subjects with 25 edentulous spaces) and FFA (15 subjects with 24 edentulous spaces). The primary outcome measure was the efficiency of protraction [magnitude and time required for protraction (rate) and anchor loss (AL)]. The secondary outcomes involved measuring the type of tooth movement (TOTM), external apical root resorption (EARR), alveolar bone height change (ABHC), alveolar bone width change (ABWC) and appliance failure. RESULTS: The rate of tooth movement was significantly higher for FFAs (0.83 ± 0.35 mm/month) versus TADs (0.49 ± 0.2 mm/month) (P = .005). Total treatment duration was less for FFAs (34.78 ± 8.1 months) versus TADs (47.72 ± 13.94 months) (P = .002). TOTM was similar for both (P = .909). EARR was 1.42 ± 1.38 mm for TAD and 1.25 ± 0.88 mm for FFA (P = .81). ABHC increased in the FFA group (1.01 ± 3.62 mm) and decreased for the TAD group (0.68 ± 1.66 mm). ABWC increased for both TAD (1.81 ± 1.73 mm) and FFA (1.75 ± 1.35 mm). The failure rate was 50% for FFAs and 33% for TADs. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems provided translation of lower molars with comparable anchorage control. However, FFAs were more efficient than TADs for lower molar protraction.

Variability of the maxillary suture maturation and density in the subjects with different sex and growth status.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to classify median palatine suture (MPS) maturation type in young and adult patients. Additionally, we compared MPS maturity type and density based on sex and growth status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cone beam computed tomography study, we included a total of 221 subjects, grouped based on sex and growth status. Once scans were aligned and oriented in the sagittal view, we conducted our evaluations on the axial sections. Based on interdigitation and shape, the MPS were categorized into Maturation Types A through E. Additionally, MPS density was measured as Hounsfield unit equivalent pixel intensity value scale for anterior and posterior sutural regions. RESULTS: The majority of male (39%) and female (42%) subjects had MPS Maturation Type C. A maximum number of growing (42%) patients had Type C and nongrowing subjects (39%) had Type E sutures. The sex comparison showed significantly lower (p < .001) MPS density for both anterior and posterior regions in males when compared to females. Additionally, for the posterior region, nongrowing males had significantly lower (p < .001) MPS density when compared to nongrowing females. Subgroup comparisons of the MPS densities between growing and nongrowing males and growing and nongrowing females showed a significant difference (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Classification of the MPS based on the maturation types provides a reliable predictor for orthodontic treatment planning. MPS density is significantly higher in females as compared to males. Similarly, nongrowing individuals have significantly higher MPS density compared to growing individuals for both anterior and posterior locations.

Clinical effectiveness of orthodontic treatment on smile esthetics: a systematic review.

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to identify how different types of orthodontic interventions affect the esthetics of the smile, any time after orthodontic treatment. Materials and methods: A systematic search of the literature was carried out using 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source) that included articles until October 2017. Randomized and non-randomized controlled clinical trials, case-control observational studies, and cohort and cross-sectional studies with validated data collection and/or follow-up periods reporting on orthodontic interventions that changed the smile any time after orthodontic treatment were part of the study protocol. Only studies that were published in the English language and those that had human patients of any age and gender who underwent orthodontic treatment were included. Results: A total of 814 articles were found and 9 of them were included (7 cohort and 2 cross-sectional studies). Among the selected articles, 8 stated the type of orthodontic intervention used during treatment and 1 did not specify the intervention. Eight articles were judged of moderate risk and 1 had high risk of bias. Conclusion: Orthodontic treatment affects the esthetics of the smile in three dimensions. There was slight evidence that extractions do not affect the smile width and buccal corridors area. Evidence on palatal expansion was controversial. The remaining existing data evidence that investigated smile esthetics after orthodontic treatment was uncertain. Therefore, more validated, evidence-based studies are needed.