This ex vivo study compared the static and kinetic frictional resistance of eight different archwires tested in a single, stainless steel, zero base 0.022 x 0.028 inch (0.56 x 0.711 mm) slot standard edgewise bracket. The archwires evaluated were 0.019 x 0.025 inch (0.483 x 0.636 mm) in dimension, manufactured from the following alloys: beta titanium (TMA), 'low friction' coloured beta titanium (aqua, honeydew, purple and violet), ion-implanted beta titanium, Timolium and a stainless steel control. Prior to friction testing, bracket and archwire dimensions were measured by direct digital imaging via a desktop computer linked to a binocular light microscope. Frictional force was evaluated using an Instron universal testing machine. All experiments were carried out at room temperature, with no ligation, in the dry state with 20 degrees of added torque. The results demonstrated that static and kinetic friction were statistically significant (P < 0.001) for all archwire types. Ion-implanted and standard TMA archwires were found to have no significant advantage over stainless steel. The archwire alloys may be ranked as follows: stainless steel produced the lowest frictional resistance followed by honeydew, ion-implanted TMA and Timolium, with aqua, purple and violet producing frictional resistance values as high as standard TMA. It was also found that the percentage difference between the archwire and bracket slot dimensions claimed by the manufacturers and those measured in this experiment produced tolerances ranging from +5.37 to -6.67 per cent.

The orthodontic treatment of patients with all types of cleft lip and palate, a resume of facial growth and discussion on dental and occlusal development is presented. A fully integrated cleft team provides life-long interdisciplinary holistic treatment for patients born with an orofacial cleft. To understand the team approach to cleft care, this article should be read in close conjunction with those on speech therapy, surgery and alveolar bone grafting to determine the synergy required between these and other clinical specialties. Team working is essential to produce successful patient outcomes. Cleft teams and their constituent clinicians are at the forefront of patient outcome assessment and any aspiring cleft team member must understand how the continuous evaluation of outcome and burden of care will further refine clinical protocols for future patients.

Objective : To determine if lip asymmetry can affect lip aesthetics. Setting and Participants : A group of dentists (n = 40) and cleft patients (n = 40) were recruited from the dental hospital and cleft service. Interventions : Still photographic digital images of lips and teeth were manipulated to produce a computerized gradient of smile appearance with different degrees of upper-lip vertical asymmetry. These five photographs (with 0 mm representing "symmetry," and 1, 2, 2.5, and 3 mm, asymmetries) were assessed by participants using a 5-point Likert scale. Statistics : Descriptive statistics in addition to chi-square test were used to analyze the data. In order to satisfy the requirement of the chi-square test, the five smile ratings were reduced to three. Results : Lip asymmetry did affect relative smile aesthetics, as determined by dentists and cleft patients. Both the dentists and cleft patients rated the 0-mm photograph more attractive than the 2.5-mm and 3-mm smiles (P < .05). The 0-, 1-, and 2-mm smiles were indistinguishable for both dentists and cleft patients. Conclusion : Lip asymmetry affects smile aesthetics. However, cleft patients and dentists were tolerant of minor asymmetries. This suggests that small degrees of lip asymmetry do not affect relative smile aesthetics as much as large degrees of lip asymmetry (2.5 mm or more).

We describe an unusual case of an odontogenic keratocyst (OKC) associated with an ungrafted left-sided alveolar cleft in a 10-year-old male patient. There is no previous report in the literature of OKC or other dental cysts associated with an alveolar cleft. We discuss the management of the OKC prior to secondary bone grafting and present this case to highlight the difficulty in the management of OKC concurrent with grafting of the alveolar cleft site, the proximity of unerupted permanent teeth, and possible treatment modalities.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

‘Amalgam versus composite’, ‘wisdom tooth coronectomy versus extraction in toto’, ‘wet versus dry bonding’, ‘smooth versus rough implants’, ‘cortical screws versus Mini-plate osteosynthesis’ – there are controversies, myths and mystery in all areas of modern dentistry, even today, in this age of scientific evidence, best practice and big brother. In the cleft world, controversies also abound. In fact, fundamental questions remain unanswered: we still do not know what the best overall treatment protocol is for the child born with a complete unilateral bony cleft lip and palate.1 Little by little, however, the evidence base is enlarging. Centralised UK regional cleft services, knowledge of national and international outcomes, and research protocols all aid the plugging of these gaps in our knowledge, and help us to find the missing pieces of the cleft jigsaw.