The orthodontic treatment and the periodontal status of patients.

OBJECTIVE: Aim: To review and analyze modern professional literature on the impact of orthodontic treatment of maxillofacial anomalies on the periodontal status of patients, in particular, the subsiqent pathogenetic mechanisms of the development of periodontal diseases in this category of patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and Methods: Bibliometric and analytical methods were used data from international scientific sources in the field of studying the impact of orthodontic treatment on the state of periodontal tissues were used. Conclusions: Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment need the increased attention to the state of periodontal tissues and regular high-quality both professional and individual oral hygiene. A comprehensive approach to treatment and preventive measures for periodontal diseases, taking into account all pathogenetic links of their development in this category of patients, aims not only to keep the periodontium healthy, but also to ensure successful completion of orthodontic treatment. Taking into account consideration the periodontal status of patients allows individual correction of the treatment plan to increase its clinical effectiveness both in the early and in the long term.

Can therapeutic reassessment in ODF be based on management principles? / La réévaluation thérapeutique en ODF peut-elle s'appuyer sur les principes du management ?

Introduction: Re-evaluation of therapy is sometimes necessary during treatment. Rarely planned or desired, it is legitimate to look for a way to avoid it while carrying out the correction of the dysmorphosis as initially envisaged. Can the introduction of management into the therapeutic process, and particularly the principle of the feedback loop, make it possible to eliminate any therapeutic re-evaluation? Materials and Methods: After having defined management, cybernetics and the feedback loop as well as the framework for their application, we will look for ways to apply them to the dento-maxillo-facial orthopedics and will then study through historical practice the specific foundations of management and cybernetics in order to be able to conclude that these means are well adapted to our practice. We will rely on a set of historical, sociological and anthropological sources. Conclusions: Management is unsuitable for eliminating the need for therapeutic re-evaluation because, through the deployment of the organizational mode which is consubstantial with it, it is opposed to the institutional order of which any therapeutic approach is a part.

Introduction: La réévaluation de la thérapeutique est parfois nécessaire en cours de traitement ; rarement prévue, ni désirée, il est légitime de chercher un moyen de s'y soustraire tout en menant à bien la correction de la dysmorphose telle qu'initialement envisagée. L'introduction du management dans le processus thérapeutique, et en particulier le principe de la boucle de rétroaction, peut-il permettre de supprimer toute réévaluation thérapeutique ? Matériels et méthodes: Après avoir défini le management, la cybernétique et la boucle de rétroaction, ainsi que le cadre de leur application, nous chercherons les moyens de les appliquer à l'orthopédie dento-maxillo-faciale, puis nous étudierons à travers la pratique historique les fondements propres du management et de la cybernétique afin de pouvoir conclure à la bonne adaptation de ces moyens avec les fins de notre pratique. Nous nous appuierons sur un ensemble de sources historiques, sociologiques et anthropologiques. Conclusion: Le management est impropre à supprimer la nécessité de la réévaluation thérapeutique car, de par le déploiement du mode organisationnel qui lui est consubstantiel, il s'oppose à l'ordre institutionnel dont fait partie toute démarche thérapeutique.

Orthognathic surgery: a significant tool for reassessment / La chirurgie orthognathique : un outil à ne pas oublier dans la réévaluation

Introduction: More than 15 years of experience in orthodontic-surgical collaboration has allowed the authors to identify some situations in which a new perspective is needed. Although it may seem easy to refer a patient to a maxillo-facial surgeon in cases of major dysmorphoses, this can lead to yet other dilemmas: a loss of results at the end of a developmental growth stage, an adult requesting a return to treatment after a camouflage orthodontic treatment or a non-cooperative child in an interceptive and preventive treatment phase. Then, a comprehensive process of reassessment becomes compulsory. Material and Method: In the form of an editorial, this article describes various cases encountered in the authors' practice. Discussion: The aim is not to point out the imperfections of our humanity, but simply to open our eyes to diagnostic elements that are missed, whether in the initial phase or during reassessment. Conclusion: As it is far from ideal to keep offering similar therapies that lead to the same pitfalls, it is time for a shift in the paradigm.

Introduction: Plus de 15 ans de recul en collaboration orthodontico-chirurgicale ont permis aux auteurs d'identifier un certain nombre de situations dans lesquelles un regard différent est devenu opportun. S'il est aisé d'orienter un patient vers un(e) chirurgien(ne) maxillo-facial(e) en cas de dysmorphoses majeures, les orthodontistes sont régulièrement confrontés à d'autres dilemmes : une perte de résultat en fin de croissance, un adulte demandeur d'une reprise après un traitement en compensation ou encore un enfant non-coopérant en phase interceptive. Une phase de réévaluation exhaustive devient alors nécessaire. Matériel et méthode: Sous la forme d'un éditorial, cet article expose différentes situations cliniques auxquelles les auteurs ont été confrontés lors de leur pratique. Discussion: Le propos n'est pas de pointer les imperfections de notre humanité mais seulement d'ouvrir les yeux sur des éléments diagnostiques qui échappent, que ce soit en phase initiale ou en réévaluation. Conclusion: Offrir une thérapeutique identique conduisant aux mêmes écueils n'est pas acceptable : il est temps de changer de paradigme.

Resorptions and orthodontics / Résorptions et orthodontie

Introduction: It's generally accepted that one of the risks associated with orthodontic treatment is apical root resorption, even though this may occur outside orthodontic treatment. In any case, it causes root shortening. Orthodontists are probably the only dental surgeons who use the inflammatory process as a therapeutic tool. They need to be aware of the risk factors for root inflammation. Along with recurrence, leukemia and periodontal problems, resorption is one of the "inconveniences" of orthodontics, which, if not inevitable, must at least be minimized. Material and Method: At present, the orthodontic literature on root resorption provides some clues as to the factors associated with the onset, severity and management of root resorption, although the complexity of this phenomenon does not allow us to arrive at a clear and unequivocal consensus. For this reason, it is important to identify potential risk factors for resorption, to take them into account before/during and after treatment, and to know what attitude to adopt in the event of resorption appearing, all in order to minimize this phenomenon, as everyone agrees that it can be a source of harm and stress for both patient and practitioner. Conclusion: There are still many grey areas in our understanding of the phenomenon, including how the elements of orthodontic treatment influence orthodontic resorption. Irreversible in nature, resorption can be sufficiently extensive to cast doubt on the benefit of successful orthodontic treatment.

Introduction: Il est généralement admis que l'un des risques associés au traitement orthodontique est la résorption radiculaire apicale même si elle peut se produire en dehors de tout traitement orthodontique. Quoi qu'il en soit, elle provoque le raccourcissement radiculaire. Les orthodontistes sont sans doute les seuls spécialistes de la chirurgie dentaire qui utilisent le processus inflammatoire en tant que moyen thérapeutique. Ils doivent connaître les facteurs de risque de cette inflammation sur la racine. La résorption fait partie, au même titre que la récidive, les leucomes et les problèmes parodontaux, des « inconvénients ¼ de l'orthodontie qui, à défaut d'être inévitables, doivent au moins être minimisés. Matériels et méthode: Actuellement, la littérature orthodontique sur la résorption radiculaire fournit quelques pistes sur les facteurs associés à l'apparition, la gravité et la gestion de la résorption radiculaire, même si la complexité de ce phénomène ne nous permet pas d'en dégager un consensus clair et équivoque. Pour cette raison, il est important d'identifier les facteurs de risque de résorption potentiels pour en tenir compte avant/pendant et après le traitement et connaître l'attitude à adopter en cas d'apparition de résorptions, tout ceci afin de minimiser ce phénomène, car tout le monde s'accorde sur le fait qu'elle peut être source de préjudice et de stress pour le patient et le praticien. Conclusion: De nombreuses zones d'ombres subsistent dans la compréhension du phénomène, notamment sur comment les éléments du traitement orthodontique influencent la résorption orthodontique. De nature irréversible, la résorption peut être suffisamment étendue pour jeter un doute sur le bénéfice apporté au succès du traitement orthodontique.

Quantitative evaluation of vertical control in orthodontic camouflage treatment for skeletal class II with hyperdivergent facial type.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we sought to quantify the influence of vertical control assisted by a temporary anchorage device (TAD) on orthodontic treatment efficacy for skeletal class II patients with a hyperdivergent facial type and probe into the critical factors of profile improvement. METHODS: A total of 36 adult patients with skeletal class II and a hyperdivergent facial type were included in this retrospective case-control study. To exclude the effect of sagittal anchorage reinforcement, the patients were divided into two groups: a maxillary maximum anchorage (MMA) group (N = 17), in which TADs were only used to help with anterior tooth retraction, and the MMA with vertical control (MMA + VC) group (N = 19), for which TADs were also used to intrude the maxillary molars and incisors. The treatment outcome was evaluated using dental, skeletal, and soft-tissue-related parameters via a cephalometric analysis and cast superimposition. RESULTS: A significant decrease in ANB (P < 0.05 for both groups), the retraction and uprighting of the maxillary and mandibular incisors, and the retraction of protruded upper and lower lips were observed in both groups. Moreover, a significant intrusion of the maxillary molars was observed via the cephalometric analysis (- 1.56 ± 1.52 mm, P < 0.05) and cast superimposition (- 2.25 ± 1.03 mm, P < 0.05) of the MMA + VC group but not the MMA group, which resulted in a remarkable decrease in the mandibular plane angle (- 1.82 ± 1.38°, P < 0.05). The Z angle (15.25 ± 5.30°, P < 0.05) and Chin thickness (- 0.97 ± 0.45°, P < 0.05) also improved dramatically in the MMA + VC group, indicating a better profile and a relaxed mentalis. Multivariate regression showed that the improvement in the soft tissue was closely related to the counterclockwise rotation of the mandible plane (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: TAD-assisted vertical control can achieve intrusion of approximately 2 mm for the upper first molars and induce mandibular counterclockwise rotation of approximately 1.8°. Moreover, it is especially important for patients without sufficient retraction of the upper incisors or a satisfactory chin shape.

Study on decision-making for orthodontic treatment plans based on analytic hierarchy process.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontics is a common treatment for malocclusion and is essential for improving the oral health and aesthetics of patients. Currently, patients often rely on the clinical expertise and professional knowledge of doctors to select orthodontic programs. However, they lack their own objective and systematic evaluation methods to quantitatively compare different programs. Therefore, there is a need for a more comprehensive and quantitative approach to selecting orthodontic treatment plans, aiming to enhance their scientific validity and effectiveness. METHODS: In this study, a combination of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and semantic analysis was used to evaluate and compare different orthodontic treatment options. An AHP model and evaluation matrix were established through thorough research and semantic analysis of patient requirements. This model considered various treatment factors. Expert panels were invited to rate these factors using a 1-9 scale. The optimal solution was determined by ranking and comparing different orthodontic treatment plans using the geometric mean method to calculate the weights of each criterion. RESULTS: The research indicates a higher preference for invisible correction compared to other orthodontic solutions, with a weight score that is 0.3923 higher. Factors such as comfort and difficulty of cleaning have been given significant attention. CONCLUSION: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method can be utilized to effectively develop orthodontic treatment plans, making the treatment process more objective, scientific, and personalized. The design of this study offers strong decision support for orthodontic treatment, potentially improving orthodontic treatment outcomes in clinical practice and ultimately enhancing oral health and patients' quality of life.

Influence of malocclusion on OHRQoL in adolescents in initial orthodontic treatment phase.

OBJECTIVES: Besides correcting malocclusions, another main objective of orthodontic treatment is to improve patients' oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). This study aimed to assess changes in OHRQoL of children within the first six months of orthodontic therapy with fixed orthodontic appliances. METHODS: 85 patients aged 11 to 14 years requiring fixed orthodontic appliance therapy were included. The children completed the German version of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ-G-11-14) before (T0), 1 month (T1) and 6 months (T2) after the start of orthodontic treatment. The type of malocclusion was categorized according to the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN). RESULTS: The initial type of malocclusion affected the children's OHRQoL, whereas gender and age did not. The IOTN dental health component (DHC) had a significant impact on the CPQ score (median CPQ of 15.00 for the group DHC 4 vs. 22.50 for DHC 5, p = 0.032). The onset of orthodontic treatment initially affected the CPQ domains "Oral symptoms" and "Functional limitations, with a change versus baseline of 2.00 (p = 0.001), but improved again after 6 months. Regression analysis demonstrated that children with an IOTN DHC 5 malocclusion experienced a greater impact on their ORHQoL, as indicated by a CPQ score 7.35 points higher than that of children with an IOTN DHC 4 malocclusion (p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: At the beginning of orthodontic treatment, the OHRQoL slightly worsens, probably due to the discomfort and appearance of the appliances. However, 6 months after the start of orthodontic treatment, OHRQoL improved again in patients with severe malocclusion (IOTN 4 and 5), and approached baseline values. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results help the clinician to better understand specific aspects of oral health that may be affected by different malocclusions, thereby improving the child's satisfaction and overall quality of life.

Orthodontic treatment of a patient with dentinogenesis imperfecta using a clear aligner system.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment for patients with dentinogenesis imperfecta (DGI) can be risky because of the fragility of their dental hard tissue. Although the Invisalign (Align Technology) clear aligner system should be a suitable orthodontic appliance for patients with DGI, to the authors' knowledge, there has been no related research. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 28-year-old woman with DGI sought treatment with a 1 mm open bite, edge-to-edge occlusion of the central incisors, and a bilateral Class III cusp-to-cusp molar relationship. Invisalign was applied for her treatment, and after 3 and one-half years of orthodontic therapy, a normal overjet and overbite were achieved, accompanied by retraction of the lower lip as well as a bilateral Class I molar relationship. In addition, there was no iatrogenic injury to the patient's teeth. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The Invisalign system may be a suitable orthodontic appliance for patients with DGI because clear aligners lessen the tensile stress to the teeth, decrease the number and area of bonds to the teeth, and offer protective effects through a full wrap of plastic that covers the crowns of the teeth.

Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children.

BACKGROUND: Prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) may be due to jaw or tooth position or both. The upper jaw (maxilla) can be too far back or the lower jaw (mandible) too far forward; the upper front teeth (incisors) may be tipped back or the lower front teeth tipped forwards. Orthodontic treatment uses different types of braces (appliances) fitted inside or outside the mouth (or both) and fixed to the teeth. A facemask is the most commonly reported non-surgical intervention used to correct Class III malocclusion. The facemask rests on the forehead and chin, and is connected to the upper teeth via an expansion appliance (known as 'rapid maxillary expansion' (RME)). Using elastic bands placed by the wearer, a force is applied to the top teeth and jaw to pull them forwards and downward. Some orthodontic interventions involve a surgical component; these go through the gum into the bone (e.g. miniplates). In severe cases, or if orthodontic treatment is unsuccessful, people may need jaw (orthognathic) surgery as adults. This review updates one published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases and two trial registries up to 16 January 2023. Review authors screened reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adolescents (16 years of age or under) randomised to receive orthodontic treatment to correct prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion), or no (or delayed) treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was overjet (i.e. prominence of the lower front teeth); our secondary outcomes included ANB (A point, nasion, B point) angle (which measures the relative position of the maxilla to the mandible). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 29 RCTs that randomised 1169 children (1102 analysed). The children were five to 13 years old at the start of treatment. Most studies measured outcomes directly after treatment; only one study provided long-term follow-up. All studies were at high risk of bias as participant and personnel blinding was not possible. Non-surgical orthodontic treatment versus untreated control We found moderate-certainty evidence that non-surgical orthodontic treatments provided a substantial improvement in overjet (mean difference (MD) 5.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.81 to 6.25; 4 studies, 184 participants) and ANB (MD 3.05°, 95% CI 2.40 to 3.71; 8 studies, 345 participants), compared to an untreated control group, when measured immediately after treatment. There was high heterogeneity in the analyses, but the effects were consistently in favour of the orthodontic treatment groups rather than the untreated control groups (studies tested facemask (with or without RME), chin cup, orthodontic removable traction appliance, tandem traction bow appliance, reverse Twin Block with lip pads and RME, Reverse Forsus and mandibular headgear). Longer-term outcomes were measured in only one study, which evaluated facemask. It presented low-certainty evidence that improvements in overjet and ANB were smaller at 3-year follow-up than just after treatment (overjet MD 2.5 mm, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.79; ANB MD 1.4°, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.37; 63 participants), and were not found at 6-year follow-up (overjet MD 1.30 mm, 95% CI -0.16 to 2.76; ANB MD 0.7°, 95% CI -0.74 to 2.14; 65 participants). In the same study, at the 6-year follow-up, clinicians made an assessment of whether surgical correction of participants' jaw position was likely to be needed in the future. A perceived need for surgical correction was observed more often in participants who had not received facemask treatment (odds ratio (OR) 3.34, 95% CI 1.21 to 9.24; 65 participants; low-certainty evidence). Surgical orthodontic treatment versus untreated control One study of 30 participants evaluated surgical miniplates, with facemask or Class III elastics, against no treatment, and found a substantial improvement in overjet (MD 7.96 mm, 95% CI 6.99 to 8.40) and ANB (MD 5.20°, 95% CI 4.48 to 5.92; 30 participants). However, the evidence was of low certainty, and there was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment. Facemask versus another non-surgical orthodontic treatment Eight studies compared facemask or modified facemask (with or without RME) to another non-surgical orthodontic treatment. Meta-analysis did not suggest that other treatments were superior; however, there was high heterogeneity, with mixed, uncertain findings (very low-certainty evidence). Facemask versus surgically-anchored appliance There may be no advantage of adding surgical anchorage to facemasks for ANB (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.07; 4 studies, 143 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for overjet was of very low certainty (MD -0.40 mm, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.50; 1 study, 43 participants). Facemask variations Adding RME to facemask treatment may have no additional benefit for ANB (MD -0.15°, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.64; 2 studies, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for overjet was of low certainty (MD 1.86 mm, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.33; 1 study, 31 participants). There may be no benefit in terms of effect on ANB of alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction compared to using expansion alone (MD -0.46°, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.10; 4 studies, 131 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence showed that non-surgical orthodontic treatments (which included facemask, reverse Twin Block, orthodontic removable traction appliance, chin cup, tandem traction bow appliance and mandibular headgear) improved the bite and jaw relationship immediately post-treatment. Low-certainty evidence showed surgical orthodontic treatments were also effective. One study measured longer-term outcomes and found that the benefit from facemask was reduced three years after treatment, and appeared to be lost by six years. However, participants receiving facemask treatment were judged by clinicians to be less likely to need jaw surgery in adulthood. We have low confidence in these findings and more studies are required to reach reliable conclusions. Orthodontic treatment for Class III malocclusion can be invasive, expensive and time-consuming, so future trials should include measurement of adverse effects and patient satisfaction, and should last long enough to evaluate whether orthodontic treatment in childhood avoids the need for jaw surgery in adulthood.

Comparative assessment of two-phase class II treatment with Activator or Bionator followed by fixed appliances: A retrospective controlled before-and-after study.

AIM: Two-phase treatment for children with Class II malocclusion with several functional appliances is still performed by many orthodontists, while the Activator and the Bionator appliances are two of the most popular ones. Aim of this study was to compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of treatment with these two appliances. METHODS: Class II children treated with Activator or Bionator in the first phase, followed by a phase of fixed appliances were included. Skeletal and dentoalveolar parameters were assessed from lateral cephalograms and analysed with linear regressions at 5%. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients (mean age 10.0 years; 47% female) were included. During the first phase, Bionator increased less the SNB (difference in mean treatment-induced changes [MD] -0.7°; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.3 to -0.2°; P=0.01) and decreased less the ANB angle (MD 0.6°; 95% CI 0 to 1.1°; P=0.03) compared to Activator. Activator slightly increased the facial axis and Bionator reduced it (MD -1.6°; 95% CI -2.3 to -0.8°; P<0.001). Compared to Activator, the Bionator retroclined more the upper incisors (MD -2.4°; 95% CI -4.6 to -0.2°; P=0.03) and increased more the interincisal angle (MD 2.9°; 95% CI 0.5 to 5.4°; P=0.02). After the second phase (6.2 years after baseline), the only differences were a reduced facial axis (MD -1.3°; 95% CI -2.2 to -0.3°; P=0.008) and an increased maxillary rotation (MD 0.9°; 95% CI 0 to 1.8°; P=0.04) with Bionator compared to Activator. CONCLUSION: Similar dentoalveolar effects were seen overall with two-phase treatment with either appliance, with Bionator being associated with more vertical increase compared to Activator.

Impact of orthodontic treatment on OHRQoL of adolescents: a longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent to which orthodontic treatment need is perceived by the patients and by the orthodontist, as well as the possible impacts on the OHRQoL (Oral Health-Related Quality of Life) over the course of conventional orthodontic treatment in adolescent patients. METHODS: The sample consisted of 55 adolescents. The perception of patients and orthodontists relative to the malocclusion was evaluated by the IOTN (Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need). The OHRQoL was evaluated by the Child-OIDP (Child-Oral Impacts on Daily Performances) questionnaire before the conventional orthodontic appliance was bonded (T0); and at the following time intervals: after one week (T1), one month (T2), three months (T3), six months (T4), and after the end of orthodontic treatment (T5). RESULTS: Adolescents who had large orthodontic treatment needs had a poor OHRQoL, according to their self-perception (p=0.003) and according to the orthodontist's perception (p<0.001), when compared with patients with small and moderate needs. There was statistically significant difference in the OHRQoL between the time intervals T0 and T1 (p=0.021), T2 and T3 (p<0.001), T3 and T4 (p=0.033), and T0 and T5 (p<0.002). At the end of treatment, all evaluated participants reported an improvement in OHRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that adolescents and orthodontists agreed with regard to the perception of orthodontic treatment need. In the first week and in the first month of orthodontic treatment, there was a negative impact on the OHRQoL. After three months, an improvement of OHRQoL was detected, which has progressed over time.

Clinical evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Driven Remote Monitoring technology for assessment of patient oral hygiene during orthodontic treatment.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to clinically evaluate the accuracy of Dental Monitoring's (DM) artificial intelligence (AI) image analysis and oral hygiene notification algorithm in identifying oral hygiene and mucogingival conditions. METHODS: Twenty-four patients seeking orthodontic therapy were monitored by DM oral hygiene protocol during their orthodontic treatment. During the bonding appointment and at each of 10 subsequent adjustment visits, a total of 232 clinical oral examinations were performed to assess the presence of the 3 oral hygiene parameters that DM monitors. In each clinical timepoint, the subjects took an oral DM scan and received a notification regarding their current oral status at that moment in time. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated to evaluate AI and clinical assessment of plaque, gingivitis, and recession. RESULTS: A total of 232 clinical time points have been evaluated clinically and by the DM AI algorithm. For DM's AI detection of plaque and calculus, gingivitis, and recession, the sensitivity was 0.53, 0.35, and 0.22; the specificity was 0.94, 0.96, and 0.99; and the accuracy was 0.60, 0.49, and 0.72, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DM's oral hygiene notification algorithm has low sensitivity, high specificity, and moderate accuracy. This indicates a tendency of DM to underreport the presence of plaque, gingivitis, and recession.

Comparison of Twin Block appliance and Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusion among children: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Our meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of applying Herbst and Twin Block appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion among children. METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China VIP Database (VIP), and Wanfang were thoroughly searched from inception to August 9, 2023. The outcomes included skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as the effect indicator, and the effect size was expressed with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The heterogeneity of each outcome effect size was tested, and the heterogeneity statistic I2 ≥ 50% was analyzed by the random-effect model, otherwise, the fixed-effect model was conducted. Sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies involving 574 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Herbst appliance had a statistically significant increase in mandibular body length (WMD: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.96, P < 0.001) compared with the Twin Block appliance. More increases in angle and distance of L1 to mandibular plane (MP) were found in the Herbst appliance compared with the Twin Block appliance. Significant and greater improvements in molar relationship (WMD: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.29, P = 0.002), posterior facial height (WMD: -1.23, 95% CI: -2.08 to -0.38, P = 0.005), convexity angle (WMD: -1.89, 95% CI: -3.12 to -0.66, P = 0.003), and Sella-Nasion plane angle (U1 to SN) (WMD: 3.34, 95% CI: 2.25 to 4.43, P < 0.001) were achieved in the Twin Block appliance. Herbst and Twin Block appliances produced similar effects in the skeletal and dentoalveolar changes including Sella-Nasion-point A (SNA), Sella-Nasion-point B, point A-Nasion-point B (ANB), overjet, and overbite. CONCLUSION: As the findings revealed both Herbst and Twin Block appliances contributed successfully to the correction of Class II malocclusion. Compared with the Twin Block appliance, the Herbst appliance may have more advantages in mandibular bone movement. Twin Block therapy resulted in more improvement in the aesthetics of the face.

Thirteen-year-old female patient with Class II division 1 malocclusion and hypodivergent facial pattern treated with buccal fixed appliance. Case report no 230052. European College of Orthodontics. Commission of affiliation and titularisation.

DATE OF BIRTH: 24/09/1998; sex: female. PRE-TREATMENT DOCUMENTS: 13 years 5 months old; 07/03/2012. DIAGNOSIS: Skeletal Class I with biretrusion, hypodivergent facial pattern; angle's Class II division 1 with overbite; moderate dento-maxillary discrepancy; maxillary incisor malposition. TREATMENT PLANNING: Bimaxillary buccal fixed appliance with Class II elastics. Active treatment duration: 25 months. POST-TREATMENT DOCUMENTS: 15 years 7 months old; 09/05/2014. POST-RETENTION DOCUMENTS: (minimum 1 year) 16 years 9 months old; 08/07/2015. Retention period: unlimited.

Class II subdivision treatment and stability with asymmetric Herbst appliance: A case report.

Non-surgical treatment of Class II subdivision may involve complex mechanics or asymmetric tooth extraction in its resolution. This report demonstrates the result and the short-term stability of Class II subdivision treated with asymmetrically installed Herbst appliance followed by conventional fixed orthodontic appliance. The approach allowed the correction of the unilateral Class II molar relationship and increased overjet, as well as the deviation of dental midlines, with improvement in lip posture and facial profile. The results remained stable two years after treatment, confirming the treatment success.

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.