-
Journal of Pharmacy & Bioallied Sciences 2023[This retracts the article on p. S502 in vol. 15, PMID: 37654327.].
[This retracts the article on p. S502 in vol. 15, PMID: 37654327.].
PubMed: 38235045
DOI: 10.4103/JPBS.JPBS_1239_23 -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research Jun 2024To compare the clinical effectiveness of V-bend bonded retainers (BR) versus vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) regarding their capacity to maintain treatment stability and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
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.
Topics: Humans; Orthodontic Retainers; Female; Male; Vacuum; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Adolescent; Dental Bonding; Treatment Outcome; Malocclusion; Young Adult; Incisor
PubMed: 38226739
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12753 -
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 2024This randomized crossover trial evaluated periodontal indexes of two types of 3 x 3 retainers (a modified 0.032-in SS V-loop retainer and a conventional 0.0215-in SS... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
This randomized crossover trial evaluated periodontal indexes of two types of 3 x 3 retainers (a modified 0.032-in SS V-loop retainer and a conventional 0.0215-in SS coaxial wire retainer) after bonded for six months. Also, bonded failure rate, and a questionnaire about comfort, ease of cleaning and overall preference were recorded.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
15 patients were enrolled in this study who used both retainers for six months each, having a 15-day wash-out interval between each bonded retainer usage. The following periodontal index were recorded: Plaque Index (PI), Calculus Index (CI) and Gingival Index (GI). Patients answered a questionnaire to assess comfort, ease of cleaning and overall retainer-type preference. Rate of bonding failure was also evaluated.
RESULTS
V-Loop retainer showed higher PI (P<0.05) as compared to conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire retainer. However, CI and GI presented no statistically significant differences between both types of retainers. The conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire retainer was chosen as the most comfortable (p<0.05), although no statistically significant differences were found for all other questionnaire answers. Bonding failure events were more observed in the 3x3 V-Loop retainer (p<0.002), as compared to the conventional 0.0215-in coaxial retainer.
CONCLUSION
V-Loop retainer showed higher PI (p<0.05), higher bonding failure rate and less comfortable, as compared to conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire.
Topics: Humans; Cross-Over Studies; Periodontal Index; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Records
PubMed: 38198390
DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.28.6.e2323175.oar -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2023Schizophrenia is a major mental disorder, with an estimated incidence of 1%. Since they are sensitive to sensory changes, orthodontic treatment to move teeth should be...
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is a major mental disorder, with an estimated incidence of 1%. Since they are sensitive to sensory changes, orthodontic treatment to move teeth should be avoided as aggressively as possible in these patients because of strong concerns about the possibility of causing adverse psychological effects, thus there are few reports on orthodontic treatment for schizophrenia patients. We report a case of severe open bite caused by medication after the onset of schizophrenia, even though the patient's occlusion had been stable for a long time after surgical orthodontic treatment. Medication control and the use of a minimally invasive orthodontic appliance improved the occlusion without adversely affecting the patient's mental health.
CASE
A 22-year-old woman presented to the clinic with a chief complaint of an anterior open bite. Intraoral findings showed an overbite (vertical overlap of the incisor ) of -3.0 mm and an overjet (horizontal overlap of the incisor teeth) of -0.5 mm. The preoperative orthodontic treatment included bilateral extraction of the maxillary first premolars. Subsequently, orthognathic surgery was performed to achieve a harmonized skeletal relationship and occlusion. Occlusion was stable for 3 years after surgery. However, 10 years after surgery, the patient returned to the clinic complaining of an anterior open bite (overbite = -4.0 mm). Six years prior to the return, the patient was diagnosed with schizophrenia. We thought that ignoring the patient's strong desire to treat her open bite might also cause psychological problems; therefore, in addition to medication control, we treated her using a minimally invasive removable orthodontic appliance (retainer with tongue crib). Her anterior open bite improved (overbite, +1.0 mm) to within the normal range.
CONCLUSION
In this case, medication control was thought to be essential to improve her drug-induced open bite. However, minimally invasive orthodontic treatment, such as the use of a removable appliance, might be helpful in promoting her mental stability as well as for improving occlusion. Careful support is required to obtain information about the patient's mental state and medications through close cooperation with psychiatrists.
PubMed: 38173706
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1304215 -
European Journal of Orthodontics Jan 2024Retention has been always considered a major challenge in orthodontics. Recently computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) fixed retainers (FRs) have... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Retention has been always considered a major challenge in orthodontics. Recently computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) fixed retainers (FRs) have been introduced as a marked development in retainer technology, offering potential advantages.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to compare the differences in relapse and failure rates in patients treated with FRs using CAD/CAM technology, lab-based technique, and chairside method.
TRIAL DESIGN
A double-blinded, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted over a 2-year period at a single centre.
INTERVENTIONS
These patients were divided into three groups: CAD/CAM group with multistranded Stainless Steel wires (CAD/CAM, n = 14), lab group with the same multistranded wires (lab, n = 15), and a chairside group with Stainless Steel Ortho-FlexTech wires (chairside, n = 14).
OUTCOMES
Inter-canine width (ICW) and Little's irregularity index were digitally measured from scans at the orthodontic debonding (T1), 6-month retention (T2), 1-year retention (T3), and 2-year retention (T4) visits. All forms of failure were documented and analyzed.
RANDOMIZATION
Participants were randomly assigned to the three groups using online randomization software (randomization.com) by a statistician who was not involved in the study.
BLINDING
Patients were blinded in terms of the FR group to which they were each randomly assigned. The principal investigator was blinded upon data analysis since patients' records were coded to minimize observer and measurement bias.
RESULTS
Initially 81 patients were assessed for eligibility. Seventy-five patients were randomly allocated into the three study groups. After 2-year follow-up, 43 patients came back for the follow-up and were analyzed. The CAD/CAM group showed significantly less reduction in ICW compared to the chairside group at all time intervals (P < .05) and compared to the lab group at 6 months (P = .038). In terms of LII, the CAD/CAM group exhibited significantly less change than the chairside and lab groups at all time intervals (P < .05). The CAD/CAM group had the lowest failure rate (21.4%), followed by chairside group (28.6%) and then lab group (33.3%), however the differences were insignificant. No harms were observed in the current study.
CONCLUSION
Within 2 years of fixed retention, CAD/CAM FRs showed significantly less relapse than lab-based and chairside FRs. However, there was no significant difference in failure rates among the groups.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
NCT05915273.
Topics: Humans; Follow-Up Studies; Stainless Steel; Prospective Studies; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Retainers; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Recurrence
PubMed: 38168815
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjad079 -
Turkish Journal of Orthodontics Dec 2023To determine the changes in orthodontists' interest in various orthodontic appliances during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the changes in orthodontists' interest in various orthodontic appliances during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
METHODS
A questionnaire probing respondents' interest in orthodontic appliances and techniques, including standard buccal metal brackets, self-ligating brackets, standard ceramic brackets, lingual brackets, clear aligners, orthodontic facemasks, removable functional appliances, fixed functional appliances, orthognathic surgery, orthodontic miniscrews, and lingual retainers, was prepared using Google Forms and then sent to the Turkish Orthodontic Society to invite all members of the society to participate in the survey. Of the 1903 members invited, 230 (response rate, 12.08%) orthodontists completed the questionnaire.
RESULTS
The respondents' interest in brackets did not change among 70% of the respondents (standard buccal metal bracket 80%, self-ligating bracket 72.2%, standard ceramic bracket 77%, and lingual bracket 76.5%). A significant difference was observed between the genders only about the interest in standard metal brackets and fixed functional appliances (p<0.05 for both). Interest in standard metal brackets decreased as respondents' work experience increased (p<0.05). The interest in self-ligating brackets was higher among respondents with 1-5 years of experience than among other respondents (p<0.05). Interest in self-ligating brackets increased more among lecturers and residents than among clinicians (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION
The interest of orthodontists in clear aligners showed the highest increase during the COVID-19 pandemic among all orthodontic appliances, whereas their interest in other appliances, particularly standard buccal metal brackets, did not change.
PubMed: 38164005
DOI: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2023.2022.124 -
European Journal of Dentistry Dec 2023Maxillary lateral incisor agenesis (MLIA), treated orthodontically by space opening, requires complimentary aesthetic rehabilitation. Resin-bonded bridges (RBBs) can...
OBJECTIVES
Maxillary lateral incisor agenesis (MLIA), treated orthodontically by space opening, requires complimentary aesthetic rehabilitation. Resin-bonded bridges (RBBs) can be equated as interim rehabilitation until skeletal maturity is achieved to place an implant-supported crown or as definitive rehabilitation in case of financial restrictions or implant contraindications. Scientific evidence of the best material must be confirmed in specific clinical situations. Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials are promising versatile restorative options. This study aimed to identify a straightforward material to deliver interim or definitive RBBs for nonprepared tooth replacement in MLIA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Single-retainer RBB made from CAD/CAM ceramic blocks (Vita Enamic [ENA], Suprinity [SUP], and zirconia [Y-ZPT]) and a three-dimensional (3D) printed material (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene [ABS]) were evaluated by shear bond strength (SBS) and mode of failure, after adherence to an artificial tooth with RelyX Ultimate used in a three-step adhesive strategy.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The load to fracture (N) was recorded, and the mean shear stress (MPa) was calculated with standard deviations (SD) for each group and compared between materials using boxplot graphics. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey-Kramer post hoc test was used to compare the differences ( = 0.05). A meta-analysis focusing on CAD/CAM materials evaluated the magnitude of the difference between groups based on differences in means and effect sizes ( = 0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]; -value = 1.96). Failure mode was determined by microscopic observation and correlated with the maximum load to fracture of the specimen.
RESULTS
The mean ± SD SBS values were ENA (24.24 ± 9.05 MPa) < ABS (24.01 ± 1.94 MPa) < SUP (29.17 ± 4.78 MPa) < Y-ZPT (37.43 ± 12.20 MPa). The failure modes were mainly adhesive for Y-ZPT, cohesive for SUP and ENA, and cohesive with plastic deformation for ABS.
CONCLUSION
Vita Enamic, Suprinity, Y-ZPT zirconia, and 3D-printed ABS RBBs are optional materials for rehabilitating MLIA. The option for each material is conditioned to estimate the time of use and necessity of removal for orthodontic or surgical techniques.
PubMed: 38158209
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1776335 -
American Journal of Orthodontics and... Jan 2024
Topics: Humans; Vacuum; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Retainers
PubMed: 38154853
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2023.10.009 -
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics =... Dec 2023Long-term stabilization of orthodontic treatment outcomes is an everyday challenge in orthodontics. The use of permanently attached lingual retainers has become gold...
OBJECTIVES
Long-term stabilization of orthodontic treatment outcomes is an everyday challenge in orthodontics. The use of permanently attached lingual retainers has become gold standard. However, in some cases, patients with fixed lingual retainers show retainer-associated side effects. Aiming to reduce these side effects, clinical knowledge about how tooth and arch form stability adaption takes place over time is important to improve long-term retention protocols. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate occlusion stability and risks for a newly developing malocclusion in a time-dependent manner in patients being treated with permanent 2‑point steel retainers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this retrospective cohort study, a total of 66 consecutive patients with round stainless-steel retainers were analyzed for postorthodontic occlusion changes after 1 year (group 1, n = 33) and 3 years (group 2, n = 33). Digital Standard Tessellation Language (STL) datasets of the lower jaw were obtained before retainer insertion (T0), and after a 1- (T1) or 3‑year (T2) retention period. Using superimposition software, T1 and T2 situations were compared to T0 regarding rotational and translational changes in tooth positions in all three dimensions.
RESULTS
Occlusion changes were low in both groups. The investigated lower canines were nearly stable in the 1‑ and 3‑year group, although a retention-time-dependent increase in tooth position change of the central and lateral incisors could be observed.
CONCLUSION
The present data provide evidence for time-dependent development of posttherapeutic occlusal adaption limited to central and lateral incisors in patients treated with a 2-point retainer. The observed occlusal changes should be interpreted as an occlusal adaption process rather than severe posttreatment changes associated with the orthodontic retainer.
PubMed: 38153533
DOI: 10.1007/s00056-023-00505-y -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2023(1) Aims: The main objective of this retrospective study was to assess the long-term stability of difficult orthodontic treatments treated to an excellent result and to...
(1) Aims: The main objective of this retrospective study was to assess the long-term stability of difficult orthodontic treatments treated to an excellent result and to correlate stability to possible prognostic factors. Secondary objectives were to observe the changes in retention protocol over time and to assess Oral Health-related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) after a long-term post-treatment follow-up. (2) Methods: Cases presented for final examination by orthodontic postgraduate students were retrospectively screened for eligibility. Eligible patients were recalled for a post-treatment recall appointment (T2), consisting of a clinical examination and intraoral scan, and were asked to complete the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14-DK). Gender, age at treatment commencement (T0), treatment modality and duration, and retention protocol were extracted from the records. At T2, the duration of the retention period was recorded, and retainers in place were clinically compared to the original retention protocol. The following variables were assessed on the sets of models at T0, T1 (end of treatment), and T2: arch length and width, overjet and overbite, Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI), Peer Assessment Rating score (PAR), and Little's Irregularity Index (LII). Multiple regression models were conducted. (3) Results: Eighty-five subjects attended T2. The mean post-treatment follow-up was 9.4 years +/- 2.4. In the upper arch, at T1, 74 patients had a combination of fixed and removable retainers, while at T2, 55 had a fixed retainer only. In the lower arch, at T1, 67 patients had a fixed retainer only, with this number increasing to 76 at T2. From T0 to T1, the PAR score improved by 96.1%, with the improvement remaining at 77.5% at T2. The stability of lower inter-canine and upper inter-premolar widths was significantly correlated with the extent of changes during treatment. The presence of a lower fixed retainer at T2 and a low LII at T1 were prognostic factors for stability. The mean weighted total OHIP-14 score at T2 was very low (1.6 ± 2.4 points). (4) Conclusions: In a sample with an initial high-severity malocclusion and treated to an excellent outcome, long-term stability was very good. Good stability can be retained when a lower fixed retainer is present at T2 and when a low LII is achieved at T1.
PubMed: 38137761
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12247692