AIM:The study was conducted to evaluate the effect of combined low energy laser application and Micro-Osteoperforations versus the effect of the application of each technique separately on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement.PATIENTS AND METHODS:Three parallel groups (each group contained 10 patients) were performed; Group A: In which one side was controlled side, and the other side received micro-osteoperforations (MOPs), Group B: In which one side was controlled side, and the other side received low-level laser therapy (LLLT), Group C: In which one side was controlled side, and the other side received both MOPs and LLLT.RESULTS:Significant statistical differences were obvious in the rate of canine retraction between each intervention and the control sides as following; the MOPs increased the rate of canine retraction by 1.6 fold more than the control side, LLLT increased the rate of canine retraction by 1.3 fold than the control side, and combination of both techniques resulted in an increase in the rate of canine retraction by 1.8 fold more than the control side.CONCLUSION:Combination of MOPs and LLLT proved to be more efficient regarding increasing the rate of canine retraction than the application of each technique separately.

AIM: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of Kinect motion sensing input device’s three-dimensional (3D) models by comparing it with direct anthropometry and digital 2D photogrammetry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six profiles and four frontal parameters were directly measured on the faces of 80 participants. The same measurements were repeated using two-dimensional (2D) photogrammetry and (3D) images obtained from Kinect device. Another observer made the same measurements for 30% of the images obtained with 3D technique, and interobserver reproducibility was evaluated for 3D images. Intraobserver reproducibility was evaluated. Statistical analysis was conducted using the paired samples t-test, interclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement. RESULTS: The highest mean difference was 0.0084 mm between direct measurement and photogrammetry, 0.027 mm between direct measurement and 3D Kinect’s models, and 0.018 mm between photogrammetry and 3D Kinect’s. The lowest agreement value was 0.016 in the all parameter between the photogrammetry and 3D Kinect’s methods. Agreement between the two observers varied from 0.999 Sn-Me to 1 with the rest of linear measurements. CONCLUSION: Measurements done using 3D Images obtained from Kinect device indicate that it may be an accurate and reliable imaging method for use in orthodontics. It also provides an easy low-cost 3D imaging technique that has become increasingly popular in clinical settings, offering advantages for surgical planning and outcome evaluation.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the effect of Artificial Intelligence versus guided Landmarks identification on the accuracy of the Lateral Cephalometric Analysis. Methodology: Three orthodontic specialists identified 17 radiographic landmarks manually for 22 different types of angular and linear measurements of 50 lateral cephalometric radiographs then tracing and analysis were done by Artificial Intelligence based software (Webceph) and Automated cephalometric analysis software (Romexis software). The measurements of the two softwares compared to humans' gold standard (Mean values of the three examiners).Results: comparison between humans' gold standard and (Wepceph) the AI's predictions showed no proportional bias in 12 parameters, The mean differences range from 0.2° to 2.9° for angular measurements except Gonial angle 4.55°, Upper 1 to NA angle 3.78° and IMPA 3.72° and from 0.25 to 1.67 mm for linear measurements. Comparison betwe en humans' gold standard and Automated cephalometric analysis software (Romexis software) showed proportional bias in 19 parameters, The mean differences range from 0.16° to 12.67° for angular measurments and from 1.01 to 13.38 mm for linear measurements.Conclusions: AI based software is able to identify landmarks of cephalometric X-rays at almost the same quality level as experienced human examiners (current gold standard).comparison between the two types of softwares showed that the accuracy of AI based (Webceph) software is better than the automated cephalometric analysis (Romexis) software.

Introduction: Indirect bonding is a technique in which orthodontic attachments are transferred from dental casts (working models) and bonded onto dentition using a transfer tray. Indirect bonding is a preferred technique for many orthodontists as it is less time consuming compared to direct bonding. Evolution in technology allowed forming transfer trays digitally by the integration of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM). This study was conducted to measure transfer accuracy of CAD/CAM indirect three dimensional printed bonding trays. Materials and methods: 140 teeth (all upper and lower incisors, canines and premolars) in 7 patients were bonded by vacuum-formed transfer tray formed on 3 dimensional (3D) printed models with resin brackets. Intra oral scanner was used initially to obtain stereolithographic file for virtual brackets positioning and another scan was taken after brackets bonding.   Superimposition of virtual STL files and post bonding STL files was done by Geomagic Qualify software to measure linear and angular deviation of brackets positions. Results: One sample t-test was performed to determine whether the mean transfer error was statistically within the selected acceptable limits of 0.5 mm for linear measurements. P-values of less than 0.05 indicated differences within the limits of 0.5 mm for linear measurements. All brackets were transferred within the accepted deviation limits Conclusions: CAD/CAM designed and printed transfer trays had high transfer accuracy in linear measurements in all teeth.