-
Journal of Orthodontics Dec 2023To compare two methods of maxillary molar distalisation with skeletal anchorage using finite element analysis (FEA).
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.
Topics: Humans; Tooth Movement Techniques; Finite Element Analysis; Maxilla; Malocclusion; Molar; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Orthodontic Appliance Design
PubMed: 37051654
DOI: 10.1177/14653125231166437 -
Journal of Dentistry Mar 2024The article reviewed novel orthodontic devices and materials with bioactive capacities in recent years and elaborated on their properties, aiming to provide guidance... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The article reviewed novel orthodontic devices and materials with bioactive capacities in recent years and elaborated on their properties, aiming to provide guidance and reference for future scientific research and clinical applications.
DATA, SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
Researches on remineralization, protein repellent, antimicrobial activity and multifunctional novel bioactive orthodontic devices and materials were included. The search of articles was carried out in Web of Science, PubMed, Medline and Scopus.
CONCLUSIONS
The new generation of orthodontic devices and materials with bioactive capacities has broad application prospects. However, most of the current studies are limited to in vitro studies and cannot explore the true effects of various bioactive devices and materials applied in oral environments. More research, especially in vivo researches, is needed to assist in clinical application.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Enamel demineralization (ED) is a common complication in orthodontic treatments. Prolonged ED can lead to dental caries, impacting both the aesthetics and health of teeth. It is of great significance to develop antibacterial orthodontic devices and materials that can inhibit bacterial accumulation and prevent ED. However, materials with only preventive effect may fall short of addressing actual needs. Hence, the development of novel bioactive orthodontic materials with remineralizing abilities is imperative. The article reviewed the recent advancements in bioactive orthodontic devices and materials, offering guidance and serving as a reference for future scientific research and clinical applications.
Topics: Humans; Dental Caries; Esthetics, Dental; Dental Enamel; Tooth Demineralization; Orthodontic Brackets
PubMed: 38253119
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104844 -
BMC Oral Health Jan 2024The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative evaluation of different designs of clear aligners and examine the disparities between clear aligners and fixed...
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative evaluation of different designs of clear aligners and examine the disparities between clear aligners and fixed appliances.
METHODS
3D digital models were created, consisting of a maxillary dentition without first premolars, maxilla, periodontal ligaments, attachments, micro-implant, 3D printed lingual retractor, brackets, archwire and clear aligner. The study involved the creation of five design models for clear aligner maxillary anterior internal retraction and one design model for fixed appliance maxillary anterior internal retraction, which were subsequently subjected to finite element analysis. These design models included: (1) Model C0 Control, (2) Model C1 Posterior Micro-implant, (3) Model C2 Anterior Micro-implant, (4) Model C3 Palatal Plate, (5) Model C4 Lingual Retractor, and (6) Model F0 Fixed Appliance.
RESULTS
In the clear aligner models, a consistent pattern of tooth movement was observed. Notably, among all tested models, the modified clear aligner Model C3 exhibited the smallest differences in sagittal displacement of the crown-root of the central incisor, vertical displacement of the central incisor, sagittal displacement of the second premolar and second molar, as well as vertical displacement of posterior teeth. However, distinct variations in tooth movement trends were observed between the clear aligner models and the fixed appliance model. Furthermore, compared to the fixed appliance model, significant increases in tooth displacement were achieved with the use of clear aligner models.
CONCLUSIONS
In the clear aligner models, the movement trend of the teeth remained consistent, but there were variations in the amount of tooth displacement. Overall, the Model C3 exhibited better torque control and provided greater protection for posterior anchorage teeth compared to the other four clear aligner models. On the other hand, the fixed appliance model provides superior anterior torque control and better protection of the posterior anchorage teeth compared to clear aligner models. The clear aligner approach and the fixed appliance approach still exhibit a disparity; nevertheless, this study offers a developmental direction and establishes a theoretical foundation for future non-invasive, aesthetically pleasing, comfortable, and efficient modalities of clear aligner treatment.
Topics: Humans; Incisor; Finite Element Analysis; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 38218801
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03704-6 -
Bioinformation 2023It is of interest to compare two myofunctional appliances (frankal appliance and twin bloc) and two fixed orthodontic appliances (PowerScope and Forsus) in management of...
It is of interest to compare two myofunctional appliances (frankal appliance and twin bloc) and two fixed orthodontic appliances (PowerScope and Forsus) in management of class II div 1 malocclusion. A total of 56 Class II division 1 malocclusion patients indicated for treatment with myofunctional appliances and fixed functional appliances were randomized. They were equally divided among frankal appliance (n=14), twin block appliance (n=14), PowerScope (American Orthodontics) (n=14), Forsus (3M Unitek Corp) groups (n=14). Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of all appliances were compared. SNB increased remarkably by 4.2° in the Twin block group and it was high among all treatment groups. There was a significant decrease in vertical dimensions (SN-GoGn) in the Twin block (p = 0.002). Early treatment of Class II due to mandibular retrusion with Twin block functional appliance is recommended due to its favorable skeletal effect.
PubMed: 38415040
DOI: 10.6026/973206300191318 -
European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry Dec 2023This is a frequently asked question. The answer depends on various factors, with cooperation being among the most essential. As a parent, you must ask yourself if you...
This is a frequently asked question. The answer depends on various factors, with cooperation being among the most essential. As a parent, you must ask yourself if you can rely on your child to wear aligners correctly for most of the day. If the answer to this question is yes, then clear aligners may be a better choice than traditional braces. There are three major benefits of clear aligners in children: 1. Greater comfort, aligners are less voluminous than traditional braces and more likely to prevent irritation, mouth ulcers and other discomfort that derives from the movement of the orthodontic wire or braces. 2. Better hygiene, as their removal during meals and tooth cleaning manoeuvres makes home oral hygiene easier. 3. Better aesthetics, thanks to the transparency of the plastic replacing the metal. However, a certain degree of caution is advised to those who are considering this treatment option. Although aligners allow us to start resolving certain tooth malpositions (which can cause periodontal and aesthetic problems or increase the severity of damage in the event of trauma), and to improve alignment and minor crowding at an early age, it must not be forgotten that the intervening period for changing the definitive position of individual teeth is still the period of permanent teeth. It is important to consider whether a child has a dental or skeletal problem. In cases where a child's problem is exclusively dental, the aligner may be one of the tools used. In cases of skeletal problems, the literature advises against the aligner, as it is not the right instrument at this stage of development. The literature in some cases refers to aligners as the universal remedy, valid for every malocclusion, presenting them as a panacea for all orthodontic problems of very young patients. It is necessary to remain open to the innovations that the market offers us and that can improve our daily clinic, and aligners can be a valid support in this regard, but, as dentists, we should always keep a critical and open eye on treatments with an evidence-based rationale. As with all other orthodontic appliances, aligners must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind that they are one of the tools in the hands of the clinician. When the clinical situation makes it possible and when both the child's requirements and the parent's expectations are fulfilled, it is certainly worth considering clear aligners as a viable route in the family-child's orthodontic treatment, making it as simple and convenient as possible. Lastly, we should remember the concept of efficiency regarding an orthodontic treatment, which depends on its cost/benefit ratio, with the former being understood in a biological sense and in terms of its impact on the life of the patient and their family with respect to duration, cooperation required, discomfort induced by the equipment used and frequency of check-ups. The latter should obviously be considered in terms of results obtained in relation to the pre-established treatment goals. A consideration that we should always keep in mind: let us never forget that is the orthodontist who treats the patient, not the appliance!
Topics: Humans; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Orthodontic Brackets; Dental Care
PubMed: 38015116
DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2023.24.04.01 -
Journal of the World Federation of... Apr 2024Aligner orthodontics has gained significant popularity as an alternative to traditional braces because of its aesthetic appeal and comfort. The biomechanical principles... (Review)
Review
Aligner orthodontics has gained significant popularity as an alternative to traditional braces because of its aesthetic appeal and comfort. The biomechanical principles that underlie aligner orthodontics play a crucial role in achieving successful outcomes. The biomechanics of aligner orthodontics revolve around controlled force application, tooth movement, and tissue response. Efficient biomechanics in aligner orthodontics involves consideration of attachment design and optimized force systems. Attachments are tooth-colored shapes bonded to teeth, aiding in torque, rotation, and extrusion movements. Optimized force systems ensure that forces are directed along the desired movement path, reducing unnecessary strain on surrounding tissues. Understanding and manipulating the biomechanics of aligner orthodontics is essential for orthodontists to achieve optimal treatment outcomes. This approach requires careful treatment planning, considering the mechanics required for each patient's specific malocclusion. As aligner orthodontics continues to evolve, advances in material science and treatment planning software contribute to refining biomechanical strategies, enhancing treatment efficiency, and expanding the scope of cases that can be successfully treated with aligners.
Topics: Humans; Biomechanical Phenomena; Orthodontic Brackets; Esthetics, Dental; Orthodontics; Malocclusion
PubMed: 38228450
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2023.12.005 -
Journal of Clinical Orthodontics : JCO Aug 2023
Topics: Humans; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 37778119
DOI: No ID Found -
Root resorption during maxillary molar intrusion with clear aligners: a randomized controlled trial.The Angle Orthodontist Nov 2023To compare changes in maxillary molar root resorption, intrusion amount, dentoskeletal measures, and maximum bite force (MBF) between clear aligners (CA) and fixed... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
To compare changes in maxillary molar root resorption, intrusion amount, dentoskeletal measures, and maximum bite force (MBF) between clear aligners (CA) and fixed appliances with miniscrew (FM) during molar intrusion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Forty adults with anterior open bite were randomized into either CA or FM groups. Lateral cephalograms, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and MBF were collected at pretreatment (T0) and 6 months of treatment (T1). Maxillary molar intrusion in FM were intruded by nickel-titanium (NiTi) closed-coil spring delivered force (150 grams/side) while clear aligners combined with squeezing exercise were performed in CA. Parametric tests were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
After 6 months of treatment, significant root resorption of 0.21-0.24 mm in CA and 0.38-0.47 mm in FM were found while maxillary molars were intruded 0.68 and 1.49 mm in CA and FM, respectively. CA showed significant less root resorption and intrusion than FM. Overbite, bite closing, and MBF increased significantly. CA showed significantly less overbite and SN-MP changes but more MBF increase than FM. MBF in CA was correlated with the amount of maxillary molar intrusion (r = 0.736, P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS
Maxillary molar intrusion and root resorption in CA were half the amount in FM in 6 months. The amount of maxillary molar root resorption was one-third of the intrusion distance. CA displayed less overbite increase and bite closing but more MBF increase than FM. MBF in CA was positively correlated with the molar intrusion amount.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Root Resorption; Overbite; Open Bite; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Molar; Tooth Movement Techniques; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Maxilla
PubMed: 37922387
DOI: 10.2319/010723-14.1 -
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi... Aug 2023To evaluate the effects of a Twin-block appliance on the condyles of patients with ClassⅡmalocclusion by conducting a systematic review and a Meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of a Twin-block appliance on the condyles of patients with ClassⅡmalocclusion by conducting a systematic review and a Meta-analysis.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and VIP Database were electronically searched. Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and single-arm trials on condylar changes produced by a Twin-block appliance in patients with ClassⅡmalocclusion were included. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager 5.3.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included; among which, seven were of high quality. After treatment with a twin block appliance, condyles moved anteriorly. The anterior joint spaces decreased (<0.000 01), whereas the posterior spaces increased (<0.000 01). The superior spaces were not changed (=0.11). Moreover, a significant difference was observed in the increase of the condylar space index (<0.000 01). After treatment, the anteroposterior diameters of the condyles and condylar height increased (=0.000 2 and <0.000 01, respectively). By contrast, no significant changes were discovered in the medial external diameters of the condyles (=0.42).
CONCLUSIONS
A Twin-block appliance can promote the growth of a condyle in the posterior and upper direction and move it forward in favor of the correction of Class Ⅱ malocclusion.
Topics: Humans; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Temporomandibular Joint; Bone and Bones; China; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional; Cephalometry
PubMed: 37474479
DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2023.2023052 -
Turkish Journal of Orthodontics Mar 2024To investigate the most common retention practices, factors influencing the retention protocol, and the differences among orthodontists regarding retention practices.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the most common retention practices, factors influencing the retention protocol, and the differences among orthodontists regarding retention practices.
METHODS
An online validated questionnaire was anonymously sent to 3,000 orthodontic residents and clinicians. The survey consisted of 19 questions regarding the participants' demographics, prescribed retention appliances, factors affecting retention appliance choices, and adjunctive retention procedures. Descriptive statistics, Chi2 and Kendall's Tau-b tests were applied.
RESULTS
Five hundred fifty-five orthodontic residents and clinicians, 53.3% males and 46.7% females, completed the survey, indicating a response rate of 18.5%. Although participants' demographics, type of treatment and pre-treatment malocclusion influence the choice of retention protocols, thermoplastic retainers (TR) were the most popular retention regime for the maxillary arch for both adults (47.4%) and adolescents (42.3%). Bonded retainers (BR) were the favored option for the mandibular arch (44.9% of adults and 40.7% of adolescents). The degree of arch expansion (64.1%) and the degree of interdigitation (50.1%) after treatment were the most influential factors for the choice of the preferred type of retainers by the respondents. 68.6% of the participants thought professional retention guidelines would be useful.
CONCLUSION
Thermoplastic retainers were the most common retention appliances for adults and adolescents in the maxilla. At the same time, BR was the most favored retainer in the mandibular arch, with clinical experience, practice setting, and malocclusion- and treatment-related factors influencing the type of the chosen appliance. The demographic differences and the uneven participation in the survey need to be considered while interpreting the findings of this study.
PubMed: 38556949
DOI: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2023.2022.179