Third Molar Comparison in Class I and II Extraction and Non-extraction Orthodontic Treatment: A Retrospective Longitudinal Study.

Objective: This study compared third molar angulation and eruption status in Class I and II malocclusions after orthodontic treatment with and without first premolar extractions. Methods: The sample comprised 93 patients divided into four groups: Group 1, Class I malocclusion treated with first premolar extractions; Group 2, Class I malocclusion treated without extractions; Group 3, Class II malocclusion treated with first premolar extractions; and Group 4, Class II malocclusion treated without extractions. Panoramic radiographs were used to evaluate the third molar mesiodistal angulations at T1 (pretreatment), T2 (posttreatment), and T3 (long-term posttreatment). Third molar eruption status was assessed in dental casts. Intergroup angulations and eruption status comparisons were performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey's test and Kruskal-Wallis test, respectively. Results: Significantly greater mesial angulation and percentage of erupted right maxillary third molars were observed in the Class I extraction group. Significantly greater eruption status of the right mandibular third molars was observed in the Class I and Class II malocclusion extraction groups. Conclusion: Class I and II malocclusion extraction treatment exhibited more favorable angulations and a greater number of erupted third molars than non-extraction treatment. The non-extraction groups exhibited a greater percentage of unerupted third molars.

Oral health-related quality of life, adaptation/discomfort during open bite treatment with spurs: complementary analysis from a randomized clinical trial.

This single-center trial aimed to longitudinally compare the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQOL), adaptation and discomfort during anterior open bite (AOB) treatment with lingual spurs and build-ups (SBU) versus spurs only (S) approaches. Children (7-11 years) with AOB were randomly allocated into two treatment groups (SBU or S). The Child Perception Questionnaire (CPQ8-10) was applied 1 and 12 months after installation of the appliances. Questionnaires evaluating functional adaptation and discomfort during the first month of treatment were also applied. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used in these questionnaires. Generalized mixed models were used for analyzing OHRQOL and discomfort data. Generalized linear models were used to assess adaptation outcomes (α = 0.05). The SBU group included 24 patients (7 males and 17 females; mean age 8.2 years) and the S group included 25 patients (11 males and 14 females; mean age 8.3 years). Regardless of the treatment type, overall OHRQOL scores at 12 months were 0.69 times those recorded at 1 month after the appliances installation (i.e., ~ 31% reduction; exp (ß) = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.88). A significant interaction between treatment and time was detected for the 'functional limitations' domain. For this domain, a significant improvement from the first to the twelfth month was observed in the S group (P < 0.001). Patients in both treatment groups showed similar and easy adaptation to the appliances. Independent of the type of treatment, tongue-related discomfort decreased over time. One week and one month after the appliance's delivery, the discomfort scores were 0.19 (i.e., ~ 81% reduction; exp (ß) = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.28; P < 0.001) and 0.02 (i.e., ~ 98% reduction; exp (ß) = 0.02; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.07; P < 0.001) times, respectively, those issued immediately after the installation of the appliances. Regardless of treatment type; overall OHRQOL improved from the first to the twelfth month of AOB treatment. The functional limitations score decreased in the S group. Children showed easy adaptation, and their discomfort decreased 1 week after the installation of the appliances.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03702881, date of registration: October 11, 2018.

Treatment stability with bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers after 12 months: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of V-bend bonded retainers (BR) versus vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) regarding their capacity to maintain treatment stability and survival rates after 12 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients finishing orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated into two groups. The BR group received maxillary and mandibular BRs in the lingual surfaces of the anterior teeth. The VFR group received VFRs right after fixed appliances removal. The patients were evaluated at four time-points: at fixed appliances removal (T0), after 3 (T1), 6 (T2) and 12 months (T3). In each time-point digital models were obtained and analysed with the OrthoAnalyzer™ software. Treatment stability based on occlusal outcomes and retainers' survival rates were evaluated. Intergroup comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney U-tests. The Kaplan-Meier survival plot and the log-rank test were employed to assess the retainers' survival. RESULTS: Both BR and VFR groups included 25 patients. The groups were comparable regarding their baseline characteristics. Up to 6 months, both retainers were equally effective; however, after 12 months, BRs were more effective in maintaining the incisors' alignment in the maxilla and the mandible compared to the VFRs. No differences were noticed in the intercanine and intermolar widths, overjet and overbite. There were no differences regarding the retainers' survivability in both arches. CONCLUSIONS: BRs were more effective in maintaining the alignment of the incisors in the maxilla and mandible compared to VFRs after 12 months. Both retainers presented the same survival rates after the same period.

Treatment of Class II malocclusion with 2-maxillary premolar extractions: Monthly vs biweekly appointments, which is more efficient?

INTRODUCTION: This study compared whether there is a difference in treatment time (TT) and efficiency when appointments are held once a month or at 2-week intervals in patients with Class II malocclusion treated with 2-premolar extractions METHODS: The patients of this retrospective sample were treated with the same orthodontic mechanics and divided into 2 groups according to frequencies of orthodontic appointments. Group 1 consisted of 18 patients (10 males, 8 females), with an initial mean age of 14.38 ± 1.38 years and appointments once a month. Group 2 consisted of 19 patients (9 males, 10 females), with an initial mean age of 14.12 ± 1.38 years and biweekly appointments. Edgewise fixed appliances with a slot size of 0.022 × 0.028 mm were used, and the anterior teeth were retracted en-masse with a rectangular wire and elastic chains. The Peer Assessment Rating and Objective Grading System indexes were measured in the dental models at the beginning and the end of treatment. Efficiency was assessed by dividing the percentage of improvement of each occlusal index concerning the multiplication of TT and the number of appointments. RESULTS: Both groups presented similar Peer Assessment Rating and Objective Grading System indexes at the end of treatment. Groups 1 and 2 presented different TTs (28.06 and 22.05 months, respectively); however, there were no differences regarding the efficiency of both protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Class II malocclusion treated with 2-maxillary premolars had significantly shorter treatment times when seen on biweekly appointments than those with monthly appointments; however, there was no difference in efficiency between protocols.

Self-correction of the ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent molar and its predictive factors: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent molar is a local disturbance that affects the development of the occlusion. AIM: To evaluate the occurrence of self-correction of maxillary first permanent molar's ectopic eruption and its predictive factors. DESIGN: Five electronic databases and part of the gray literature were investigated. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE tool. RESULTS: Four studies were selected: Three had a low risk of bias, and one, moderate. Evidence with a moderate level of certainty was generated, indicating a possibility of 47%-78% of spontaneous correction up to 7 years of age. Supporting the prognosis, whether reversible or irreversible, there was a positive correlation between the severity of the atypical distal resorption of the second primary molar, a higher magnitude of impaction, a larger eruption angle, and a bilateral occurrence with the irreversibility of the cases. CONCLUSION: Spontaneous correction of the ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent molar is feasible and dependent on the severity of predictive factors. Early intervention is mandatory in irreversible cases.

Spontaneous changes in mandibular incisor crowding from mixed to permanent dentition: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Dental crowding is the most prevalent malocclusion in the mixed and permanent detitions and can have a major impact on dentofacial esthetics. However, adjustments to the development and growth of the dentition can potentiate self-correction of dental crowding during childhood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the physiological behavior of mandibular incisor crowding in the transition from mixed to permanent dentition. METHODOLOGY: Five electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS and LIVIVO) and part of the gray literature (Proquest and Google Scholar) were investigated, based on the eligibility criteria associated with the acronym PECO, until June 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-E tool and the certainty of evidence, the GRADE tool. RESULTS: Among the 2.663 studies identified, five were selected for qualitative analysis, of which one have a low risk of bias, and four, a moderate risk. A total of 243 patients were evaluated. Evidence with a high level of certainty was generated indicating a tendency for improvement in mandibular incisor crowding from mixed to permanent dentition, with mandibular incisor crowding decreasing from 0.17 to 4.62 mm on average. The mandibular incisor crowding reduction seems to be associated with the amount of initial crowding and spontaneous dental arch dimensional changes that occur in the mixed dentition and culminate in the increase in arch perimeter, leeway space, incisor protrusion and transverse growth of the maxillary and mandibular arch. CONCLUSION: Based on moderate scientific evidence, spontaneous longitudinal changes in dental arch in the transition from the mixed to the permanent dentition demonstrate a spontaneous improvement in mandibular incisor crowding by up to 4.62 mm. These evidence provide a scientific basis for planning only longitudinal follow-up in patients with mild to borderline moderate mandibular incisor crowding in the mixed dentition avoiding overtreatment.

Three-dimensional changes after maxillary molar distalization with a miniscrew-anchored cantilever.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the changes after maxillary molar distalization in Class II malocclusion using the miniscrew-anchored cantilever with an extension arm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample included 20 patients (9 male, 11 female; mean age 13.21 ± 1.54 years) with Class II malocclusion, treated with the miniscrew-anchored cantilever. Lateral cephalograms and dental models obtained before (T1) and after molar distalization (T2) were evaluated using Dolphin software and 3D Slicer. Superimposition of digital dental models using regions of interest on the palate was performed to evaluate three-dimensional displacement of maxillary teeth. Intragroup change comparisons were performed using dependent t-test and Wilcoxon test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The maxillary first molars were distalized to overcorrected Class I. The mean distalization time was 0.43 ± 0.13 years. Cephalometric analysis demonstrated significant distal movement of the maxillary first premolar (-1.21 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.45, -1.96) and maxillary first (-3.38 mm, 95% CI: -2.88, -3.87) and second molars (-2.12 mm, 95% CI: -1.53, -2.71). Distal movements increased progressively from the incisors to the molars. The first molar showed small intrusion (-0.72 mm, 95% CI: 0.49, -1.34). In the digital model analysis, the first and second molars showed a crown distal rotation of 19.31° ± 5.71° and 10.17° ± 3.84°, respectively. The increase in maxillary intermolar distance, evaluated at the mesiobuccal cusps, was 2.63 ± 1.56 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The miniscrew-anchored cantilever was effective for maxillary molar distalization. Sagittal, lateral, and vertical movements were observed for all maxillary teeth. Distal movement was progressively greater from anterior to posterior teeth.

Finite element analysis of two skeletally anchored maxillary molar distalisation methods.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods of maxillary molar distalisation with skeletal anchorage using finite element analysis (FEA). METHODS: Two digitised models were created: the miniscrew-anchored distaliser, which consisted of a distalisation method anchored in a buccal miniscrew between the first molar and second premolar (Model 1), and the miniscrew-anchored palatal appliance, which consisted of a distalisation method anchored in a miniscrew on the anterior region of the palate (Model 2). FEA was used to simulate both methods, assessing teeth displacements and stress concentration. RESULTS: The miniscrew-anchored distaliser showed greater buccal than distal displacement of the first molar, while the opposite was observed in the miniscrew-anchored palatal appliance. The second molar responded similarly in the transverse and anteroposterior perspectives with both appliances. Greater displacements were observed at crown level than in apical regions. Greater stress concentration was observed at the buccal and cervical regions of the crown in the miniscrew-anchored distaliser and the palatal and cervical regions in the palatal appliance. The stress progressively spread in the buccal side of the alveolar bone for the miniscrew-anchored distaliser and in the palatal root and alveolar bone for the palatal appliance. CONCLUSION: FEA assumes that both appliances would promote maxillary molar distalisation. A skeletally anchored palatal distalisation force seems to provide a greater molar bodily movement with less undesirable effects. Greater stress is expected at the crown and cervical regions during distalisation, and the stress concentration in the roots and alveolar bone depends directly on the region the force was applied.

Treatment effects of the MARA appliance and Activator-Headgear combined with fixed appliances in Class II division 1 malocclusion patients: A retrospective longitudinal study.

INTRODUCTION: Class II division 1 malocclusion treatment with functional devices offers acceptable results. These devices can be removable or fixed, and the essential difference between them is the need for compliance. It is clinically important to investigate if there are differences in the treatment effects of these devices that present different characteristics. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective longitudinal study compared the treatment effects of Class II correction with the MARA appliance, Activator-Headgear (AcHg) combination, both followed by multibracket fixed appliances, and an untreated control group. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Each experimental group was composed of 18 patients, with a baseline mean age of 11.70 and 10.88 years, treated for 3.60 and 3.17 years. The control group consisted of 20 subjects with baseline mean age of 11.07 years. The groups were evaluated before (T1) and after (T2) treatment. Lateral radiographs were used to evaluate the treatment changes with treatment (T2-T1), compared to the control group. Intergroup comparisons were performed using repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey's test. RESULTS: The AcHg group showed significantly greater maxillary growth restriction than the MARA, while the mandibular changes were due to natural growth. Both devices promoted significantly greater maxillary incisors retrusion, mandibular incisors labial inclination, and improvement of overjet and molar relationships, compared to the control. CONCLUSIONS: Both functional devices followed by multibracket appliances were effective to correct Class II malocclusion. Nonetheless, the AcHg combination presents superior skeletal effects, due to significantly greater maxillary growth restriction compared to the MARA appliance. Moreover, the appliances presented similar dentoalveolar effects.

Mandibular asymmetry retreatment with minimal presurgical orthodontic preparation and fully customized lingual orthodontics: A case report with new possibilities using blender open-source software.

New possibilities such as Surgery-first and Minimal Presurgical Orthodontics have become extra alternatives for patients, orthodontists, and oral and maxillofacial surgeons, with immediate facial improvements, reduced preparation time, and shorter treatment time. The purpose of this case report was to demonstrate the retreatment of a female patient, dissatisfied with the instability of the compensatory orthodontic treatment, chin deviation, and forward inclination of the maxillary incisors, which was successfully treated with Minimal Presurgical Orthodontic approach associated with customized lingual brackets and virtual planning on the open-source Blender 3D software, where the post-surgical maxillary lingual brackets were also designed. Orthodontic preparation was performed in 5 months. After surgery, orthodontic treatment was finished with the aid of mini-implants and miniplates. The total treatment time was 18 months. Great facial and occlusal results were obtained and the patient was satisfied. Overall, all treatment steps were performed following a digital workflow and open-source software. It is possible to conclude that Minimal Presurgical Orthodontic Preparation was an excellent alternative for the retreatment of this patient with mandibular asymmetry and increased treatment expectations. Additionally, the surgical planning and design of lingual braces with open-source software can be considered useful and low-cost alternatives for orthodontists.

Twin-block and mandibular anterior repositioning appliances effects in Class II malocclusion correction.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the cephalometric changes in Class II Division 1 malocclusion patients treated with the Twin-block (TB) and the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance (MARA). METHODS: This retrospective study was performed with 132 lateral cephalograms of patients with Class II malocclusion divided into 3 groups: a TB group comprised 21 patients with mean initial and final ages of 10.59 and 11.97 years, respectively, treated for a mean period of 1.38 years; a MARA group comprised 21 patients with mean initial and final ages of 11.98 and 13.20 years, respectively, treated for a mean period of 1.22 years; and a control group included 24 subjects with untreated Class II malocclusion with mean initial and final ages of 10.55 and 12.01 years, respectively, observed for a mean period of 1.46 years. Cephalometric intergroup comparisons regarding the treatment changes (T2 - T1) were performed with the analysis of covariance, followed by Tukey tests. RESULTS: Both appliances demonstrated significant restriction of the maxilla and improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship. The MARA produced a significantly greater amount of labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors than the other groups. The TB showed significant extrusion of the mandibular incisors and molars compared with MARA and control, respectively. Both treated groups reduced the overjet and overbite. The MARA presented a significantly greater reduction in the molar relationship than the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: The appliances showed a headgear effect on the maxilla and effectively changed Class II cephalometric parameters through a combination of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects. TB showed a greater increase in LAFH. MARA promoted greater labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors.

Root resorption in Class II malocclusion treatment with and without maxillary premolar extractions.

INTRODUCTION: Class II malocclusion treatment efficiency with maxillary premolar extractions has been reported. However, no study evaluated the root resorption associated with this protocol. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the degree of root resorption of the maxillary incisors in Class II malocclusion treatment with and without maxillary premolar extractions. METHODS: The sample consisted of 56 patients with complete Class II malocclusion, divided into 2 groups. Group 1 comprised 28 patients (10 female, 18 male) treated with maxillary first premolar extractions, and group 2 was composed of 28 patients (16 female, 12 male) treated without extractions. The groups were matched regarding initial age, treatment time, crowding, initial malocclusion severity, finishing quality, initial overjet, and overbite. Periapical radiographs of the maxillary incisors were used to assess the degree of root resorption using a scoring system. In addition, treatment changes involving maxillary incisors were evaluated in lateral headfilms. Intergroup comparisons were performed with t, Mann-Whitney U, and chi-square tests (P <0.05). RESULTS: Overjet, overbite, inclination, vertical positional changes, and vertical and horizontal apical displacements of maxillary incisors were similar between groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding root resorption of maxillary incisors. Root resorption degree ranged from mild to moderate in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treating complete Class II malocclusion with 2 maxillary premolar extractions resulted in a similar root resorption as treating without maxillary premolar extractions. An individualized evaluation of root resorption predisposing factors should be performed for each patient.

Dentoskeletal and soft-tissue changes of class II malocclusion treatment with modified first class appliances: a prospective clinical trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Intraoral distalizers are effective and conservative alternatives for Class II malocclusion treatment. However, the literature is still controversial regarding the effects of using skeletal anchorage in intraoral distalizers with different designs. The aim of this study is to compare dentoskeletal and soft-tissue changes of Class II malocclusion patients treated with three types of First Class (FC) distalizers. MATERIALS/METHODS: The sample of this prospective clinical trial included 30 consecutive patients divided into three groups: G1-FC conventionally anchored; G2-FC skeletally anchored Type 1; G3-FC skeletally anchored Type 2. Each group consisted of 10 patients. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed in two stages: at pre-treatment (T0) and after distalization (T1). The radiographs were digitized and analyzed using the software Dolphin Imaging 11.5. Comparisons of treatment changes between groups (T1-T0) were performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the Tukey test. RESULTS: Patients treated with the conventionally anchored FC showed significantly greater incisors protrusion and labial inclination, second premolars mesial inclination and mesialization than the FCs skeletally anchored. No differences were observed regarding the amount of molar distalization and molar angulation between groups. LIMITATIONS: It can be considered that the limitation of this study lies in its non-randomized design. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: First Class distalizers with conventional and skeletal anchorage are effective alternatives for Class II molar distalization. Distalization associated with indirect skeletal anchorage reduce the undesirable effects observed in the incisors and premolars during distalization when compared to distalization conventionally anchored.

Effects of botulinum toxin in patients with myofascial pain related to temporomandibular joint disorders: A systematic review.

Botulinum toxin is used as an alternative for the treatment of chronic refractory myofascial pain derived from temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). It is important to establish the benefits of botulinum toxin in this type of symptomatology. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review in order to evaluate the effects of botulinum toxin in patients with myofascial pain related to temporomandibular disorders. The search was carried out systematically, without limitations of language or year of publication, until February 2021. The databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Latin American and Carribean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). Partial gray literature was searched using Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, OpenGrey, and the reference lists of selected articles. Randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating the effects of botulinum toxin in the treatment of myofascial pain were included. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and the The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the scientific evidence. A total of 900 studies were retrieved, out of which only 8 randomized clinical trials were selected. From these 8 studies, the data of a total of 314 patients, predominantly women, between the ages of 18 to 75 years was obtained. After the assessment of the studies with the RoB 2.0 tool, 7 studies showed some concerns regarding the reported results and only one was at a low risk of overall bias. The analysis of the studies has shown that low doses of botulinum toxin are effective in the treatment of refractory myofascial pain associated with temporomandibular disorders. The studies presented mediumto low-certainty evidence..

Three-dimensional dentoalveolar changes in open bite treatment in mixed dentition, spurs/posterior build-ups versus spurs alone: 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial.

This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the three-dimensional dentoalveolar maxillary changes after anterior open bite treatment with bonded spurs and build-ups versus bonded spurs alone. Patients from 7 to 11 years of age with anterior open bite were randomly allocated into two groups. Bonded spurs and posterior build-ups were used in the experimental group and only bonded spurs were used in the comparison group. The randomization sequence was generated at www.randomization.com . Opaque, sealed and sequentially numbered envelopes were part of the allocation concealment. Digital dental models were acquired before (T1) and after 12 months of treatment (T2) and de-identified for analysis purposes. Three-dimensional changes of maxillary permanent incisors and first molars were evaluated by means of T1 and T2 dental model superimposition. Landmark-based registration on the posterior teeth and registration on the palate using regions of interest were performed. T or Mann-Whitney U tests were used for intergroup comparisons (P < 0.05). Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Twenty-four children (17 girls and 7 boys) were included in the experimental group (mean age 8.22 ± 1.06 years) and 25 children (14 girls and 11 boys) were included in the comparison group (mean age 8.30 ± 0.99 years). After 12 months of treatment, inferior displacements of maxillary incisors were similar in the experimental (1.55-2.92 mm) and comparison (1.40-2.65 mm) groups. Inferior displacement of the maxillary molars was also similar in both groups (MD: - 0.13 mm; 95% CI - 0.38, 0.12). The experimental and comparison groups showed medial and lateral displacements of the permanent first molars, respectively (MD, - 0.31 mm; 95% CI - 0.51, - 0.11). Lingual inclination of the permanent first molars were observed in the experimental group and buccal inclination in the comparison group (MD, - 2.16°; 95% CI - 3.72, - 0.60). Similar three-dimensional displacements of maxillary central and lateral incisors, and inferior displacements of maxillary permanent first molars were observed in both groups. Bonded spurs associated with posterior build-ups demonstrated some medial displacement and lingual inclination of the maxillary permanent first molars while opposite changes were noticed in the comparison group.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03702881, date of registration: October 11, 2018.