RESUMEN
Background: The objective is to compare the impact of clear aligner treatment (CAT) versus conventional fixed appliance treatment (FAT) on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among adults at five-time points: pretreatment (T0), 1 week (T1), 1 month after (T2), and 6 months after (T3) treatment initiation, and in the long-term follow-up (T4). Materials and Methods: Search terms were based on Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and non-MeSH. Potentially eligible studies compared OHRQoL in clear aligner (CA) and fixed appliance (FA) patients. In February 2023, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and PubMed were searched for published studies. Nine out of 94 shortlisted papers were eligible for a systematic review. Of these nine papers, five studies were considered for a meta-analysis. Results: At T0, CA and FA patients had similar oral health impact profile (OHIP)-14 questionnaire scores with a standard mean difference (SMD) of 0.105 (confidence interval [CI]: -1.029-1.48). The SMD of the OHRQoL related to T1, T2, and T3 was -3.119 (CI: -0.145, 0.355), -1.527 (CI: -5.597, -0.64), and - 2.331 (CI: -1.906, -1.148). T4 showed no difference between groups (SMD = 0.007, CI: CI: -4.286, -0.376). Regarding the OHIP-14 domains, functional limitations remained consistent in both groups across all time intervals. Psychological discomfort exhibited a notable difference only at T2. Throughout the treatment, CAT showed significantly lower levels of physical, psychological, and social disability, as well as handicap, though these differences did not persist beyond T4. Notably, physical pain was the sole domain that remained elevated in the FAT group up to T4. Conclusion: During the 1st day of the orthodontic treatment, both the CA and FA groups had comparable OHRQoL statuses. However, as time passed, the CA group notably improved their OHRQoL compared to the FA group. Interestingly, after a year or the completion of treatment, both groups eventually reached similar OHRQoL levels. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that FA patients continued to experience more physical pain even a year later.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Using finite element analysis (FEA), this study aimed to determine the effect of nonrigid connectors (NRCs) and their position on the success of tooth and implant-supported fixed prostheses in the maxillary posterior region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three three-dimensional FEA models were designed, presuming maxillary second premolar and first molar to be extracted. Implant (replacing first molar), abutment, bone (spongious and cortical), first premolar (containing dentin, root cement, gutta-percha, and casting post and core), periodontal ligament, and three three-unit cemented porcelain-fused-to-metal prostheses (a rigid one and two nonrigid) were modeled. The NRC was once on the tooth side and once on the implant side. The prostheses were loaded twice. The first molar (180 N) and premolars (120 N) teeth were subjected to progressive vertical and oblique (12-degree) loads, and maximum von Mises stress and strain in teeth and connectors were calculated for each model. RESULTS: The findings of the current study showed evidence that tooth-implant design with an NRC has significantly increased the average stress in the tooth. The average stress in dentin was 769.02 for the mesial connector and 766.95 for the distal connector, and this was only 731.59 for rigid connector. Furthermore, it was observed that rigid connector has considerably minimized the stress within the tooth-implant-supported fixed partial denture. The average stress for the crown and metal frame is 346.22 and 526.41 in rigid connector, while it is 1,172.9 and 2,050.9 for the nonrigid mesial connector. CONCLUSION: Although distal NRC was more efficient than mesial NRC, using NRC will only reduce the stress applied to cortical bone and is not recommended in the posterior region of the maxilla.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Articaine is reported to have a fast onset and a short-acting pulpal anesthesia in inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Clonidine is an α 2-adrenoceptor agonist and is used as an adjunct to enhance the anesthetic efficacy and induce greater analgesia. In an attempt to search for more effective ways to achieve profound analgesia after root canal treatment, this randomized clinical trial assessed the efficacy of clonidine added to articaine/epinephrine solution on post-operative pain relief after root canal treatment in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. Materials and Methods: Our randomized clinical trial study enrolled one hundred patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars. They were divided into two groups, each group received either 0.2 mL 150 µg/mL clonidine or distilled water added to 1.8 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine cartridge. The alveolar nerve block in the two groups was administered by the same clinician and the subject's pain scores were recorded at 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h post-operatively using a Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Data were analyzed using t, chi-square and repeated-measures ANOVA statistical tests. Results: The mean pain scores for clonidine group were significantly lower than control at all the time intervals after treatment (P<0.05). We did not notice any clinical and there were no complaints from the patients either. Conclusion: Based on this randomized clinical trial study the addition of clonidine to the articaine/epinephrine solution using an inferior alveolar nerve block during root canal treatment in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis may be effective in reducing post-operative pain.
