RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The study's objective was to assess the dimensional accuracy and reliability of dental digital models prepared by direct intraoral scanning and indirect scanning of the plaster models compared to the plaster models as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 20 patients. Nine had a class I malocclusion, seven had a class II malocclusion, and four had a class III malocclusion. Intraoral scanning was done for the upper and lower arches of all the patients enrolled in this study using an intraoral scanner (i700; Medit, Seoul, Korea). The next step was preparing the plaster model for the control group. Addition-silicone impressions were taken for each patient's arches. The impressions were poured according to American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) standards. Finally, the digital models of the indirect scanning group were prepared using a 3D desktop scanner (T710; Medit). In total, 26 measurements were made on the plaster and digital models. Paired t-tests were used to test for significant differences between the studied groups. The reliability of the studied techniques was tested using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Because of the multiple comparisons, the É level was adjusted and set at 0.002. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the intraoral scanning group (20 patients) and the plaster models group (20 patients; P>0.002). The ICCs ranged from 0.814 to 0.993, indicating excellent agreement between the direct digital and traditional plaster models. There were no significant differences between the digital and original plaster models (P>0.002). ICCs ranged from 0.834 to 0.995, indicating excellent agreement between the indirect digital and original plaster models. No significant differences were detected between the direct and indirect digital models (P>0.002). ICCs ranged between 0.813 and 0.999, indicating excellent agreement between direct and indirect digital models. CONCLUSION: Both direct and indirect scanning techniques are accurate and reliable for digital model preparation and can be considered an alternative to traditional plaster models used in clinical orthodontics diagnostic applications. The intraoral scanning technique can be considered a valid alternative for indirect scanning of the plaster models to prepare digital working models during the digital design and fabrication of orthodontic appliances such as clear aligners.
RESUMEN
Background and objectives Recently, both surgical and non-surgical interventions have gained popularity in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement, but there is no randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing both modalities in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) during maxillary canine retraction. Therefore, this trial aimed to assess the PROMs associated with either low-level laser therapy (LLLT) or piezocision-assisted acceleration in the context of maxillary canine retraction. Materials and methods This was a single-blinded, single-center, three-arm RCT. A total of 54 patients (12 males, 42 females, mean age 20.65 ± 2.85) whose treatment needed upper-first-premolar extraction to facilitate canine retraction were enrolled and randomly divided into three groups: piezocision group (PG), LLLT group (LLLTG), and the control group (CG). Standardized questionnaires using a visual analog scale were distributed to patients at five assessment times: 1 (T1), 3 (T2), 7 (T3), 14 (T4), and 28 days following the canine retraction initiation (T5). The patients' pain, discomfort, swelling, chewing difficulty, satisfaction, and acceptance were recorded. Results Regarding pain and discomfort, the levels were significantly lower in the LLLTG during the first two weeks of canine retraction compared to the other two groups (p<0.017). At the same time, these levels were significantly greater in the PG than the CG in the first week of canine retraction (p<0.017). Patients in the PG had a "mild to moderate" perception of swelling at T1 and T2, which was significantly different than that of the other two groups (p<0.001). Regarding chewing difficulty, the levels in the LLLTG were significantly lower than those in PG at the first three assessment times (p<0.017). Patients' satisfaction with canine speed was significantly greater in the intervention groups compared to the CG (p<0.001). In contrast, no statistically significant differences were found between the three groups regarding satisfaction with gum appearance surrounding the canine (p=0.061) and acceptance (p=0.125). Conclusion The LLLT-assisted canine retraction was associated with significantly lower negative patient-reported outcomes during the first two weeks of retraction than piezocision-assisted retraction. However, the levels of pain and discomfort were significantly greater in the piezocision-assisted retraction group than those in the conventional canine retraction group, which in turn were greater than those with the LLLT-assisted canine retraction group during the first week of retraction. Patient satisfaction and acceptance were high with both piezocision and LLLT interventions.
RESUMEN
(1) Background: This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcome measures when accelerating en masse retraction between the piezocision procedure and the subsequent application of low-level laser therapy (FC+LLLT), with the piezocision alone (FC), and in a control group. (2) Methods: A three-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted involving 60 patients (41 females and 19 males) with Class II division I malocclusion. The en masse retraction was performed using NiTi closed coil springs attached to miniscrews. The LLLT was performed using an 808 nm Ga-Al-As diode laser. Patient responses regarding pain, discomfort, swelling, and chewing difficulties were reported at ten assessment points. (3) Results: The greatest pain levels were observed 24 h after the application of force during the first and third months of retraction. The mean pain, discomfort, swelling, and chewing difficulties were significantly smaller in the control group than in the FC and FC+LLLT groups. High satisfaction levels were reported in all three groups (p < 0.05). (4) Conclusions: The accelerated en masse retraction via piezocision, followed by a small course of LLLT, was accompanied by significantly fewer pain, discomfort, and chewing difficulties than the control group. LLLT is a valuable addition to piezocision, with an improved patient experience.
RESUMEN
Malocclusion may affect interpersonal relationships, self-esteem (SE), and psychological well-being, weakening patients' psychological and social activities. Several studies investigated the effect of orthodontic treatment on these social and psychological aspects, such as SE. However, the direct relationship between SE and orthodontic treatment has not yet been confirmed. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the existing evidence in the literature concerning the influences of orthodontic treatment on patients' SE systematically and critically. An electronic search in the following databases was done in September 2022: PubMed®, Web of Science™, Scopus®, Embase®, GoogleTM Scholar, Cochrane Library databases, Trip, and OpenGrey. Then, the reference list of each candidate study was checked for any potentially linked papers that the electronic search might not have turned up. Inclusion criteria were set according to the population/intervention/comparison/outcome/study design (PICOS) framework. For the data collection and analysis, two reviewers extracted data separately. The risk of bias 2 (RoB-2) and the risk of bias in non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) tools were used to assess the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, respectively. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to evaluate the quality of the evidence for each finding. Sixteen studies (five RCTs, seven cohorts, and four cross-sectional) were included in this review. Unfortunately, the results could not be pooled into a meta-analysis. Only six studies have reported an increase in SE after orthodontic treatment (P<0.05 in these studies). No agreement between the included studies was observed regarding the influence of fixed orthodontic treatment, gender, or age on SE. The quality of evidence supporting these findings ranged from very low to low. There is low evidence indicating that fixed orthodontic treatment can improve patients' SE. In addition, unclear data are available about the influence of patients' gender and age on SE after orthodontic treatment. Therefore, high-quality RCTs are required to develop stronger evidence about this issue.