Early OMI and single wire arm deformation in HEs are crucial for unsuccessful RME in more mature maxillae. Double wire arms should be obligatory. OMIs with inner diameter greater 1.36mm are recommended. One hundred per cent overlapping abutment attachments do not detach.
ObjectivesTo investigate the skeletal and dental changes during chincup versus facemask treatment, to compare the long-term effects of the two appliances, and to document the impact of each on treatment success.MethodsIn all, 61 patients with Class III syndrome were retrospectively analyzed at three examination times: 7.8 ± 1.7 years of age (T0, pretreatment), 9.6 ± 2.4 years of age (T1, posttreatment), and around 15–20 years later (T2, long-term follow-up).ResultsSignificant changes of specific cephalometric parameters for all treatment times: T0–T1 (SNA, interbase and gonial angle, Björk’s sum angle, maxillomandibular differential, and distance of upper lip to esthetic line), T1–T2 (NL-NSL, SNB, mandibular-body length, effective mandibular length, and effective maxillary length), and T0–T2 (mandibular-body length, effective mandibular length, effective maxillary length, maxillomandibular differential, SNB, ANB, gonial angle, Björk’s sum angle, and Wits appraisal). The T1–T2 results illustrate that in both treatment groups the typical Class III growth pattern often reappeared after treatment, including gains in SNB angle, condylion-gnathion length, and gonion-menton distance.ConclusionsEither a facemask or a chincup may be effectively used to treat Class III malocclusion. There were differences in long-term stability. Maxillary development was similarly favorable in both groups of patients with successful outcome. The subgroup in whom chincup treatment had failed were mainly characterized by excessive mandibular growth, or lack of maxillary catch-up growth, with deterioration of the maxillomandibular relationship notably in the initial phase of treatment. Early chincup treatment did not have an adverse impact on the temporomandibular joints.
AimThe present study evaluated the temporal release of Co Cr, Mn, and Ni from the components of a typical orthodontic appliance during simulated orthodontic treatment.Materials and methodsSeveral commercially available types of bands, brackets, and wires were exposed to an artificial saliva solution for at least 44 days and the metals released were quantified in regular intervals using inductively coupled plasma quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-MS, Elan DRC+, Perkin Elmer, USA). Corrosion products encountered on some products were investigated by a scanning electron microscope equipped with an energy dispersive X-ray microanalyzer (EDX).ResultsBands released the largest quantities of Co, Cr, Mn, and Ni, followed by brackets and wires. Three different temporal metal release profiles were observed: (1) constant, though not necessarily linear release, (2) saturation (metal release stopped after a certain time), and (3) an intermediate release profile that showed signs of saturation without reaching saturation. These temporal metal liberation profiles were found to be strongly dependent on the individual test pieces. The corrosion products which developed on some of the bands after a 6-month immersion in artificial saliva and the different metal release profiles of the investigated bands were traced back to different attachments welded onto the bands.ConclusionThe use of constant release rates will clearly underestimate metal intake by the patient during the first couple of days and overestimate exposure during the remainder of the treatment which is usually several months long. While our data are consistent with heavy metal release by orthodontic materials at levels well below typical dietary intake, we nevertheless recommend the use of titanium brackets and replacement of the band with a tube in cases of severe Ni or Cr allergy.
An average rate of bracket loss of between 4.7 and 6 per cent is to be expected in daily clinical orthodontic practice during a typical 2 year treatment period. For reasons of economy, detached brackets are commonly reattached after sandblasting to remove adhesive, or replaced with used brackets reconditioned by specialist companies. In the present study, sandblasting and specialist bracket-reconditioning procedures were systematically compared by comparative shear testing of rebonded, reconditioned, and new brackets (n = 160) using light- and chemically cured adhesives. Statistical analysis was carried out with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. The mean bond strength of reconditioned brackets was, in each case, lower than that of new brackets, with the lowest value obtained with sandblasted brackets. This nevertheless exceeded the minimum recommended value of 5-8 MPa. Bond strength was generally higher with chemically than with light-curing adhesive; the chemically curing adhesive provided bond strength on previously bonded enamel higher than the light-curing adhesive on intact teeth. Consistent with this, the results of the adhesive remnant index (ARI) demonstrated improved bonding with the chemically curing than the light-curing adhesive to the bracket base. Despite resulting in a weaker bond strength compared with new brackets, sandblasting brackets accidentally detached during orthodontic treatment will generally allow effective reattachment to be achieved. Bond strength can be improved with the use of a chemically cured adhesive. Used brackets reconditioned by specialist companies provide a second alternative to new brackets and higher bond strengths than sandblasted brackets.
The aim of this study was to compare, by shear testing, the bond strengths after 1 and 24 hours of a light-cured resin (Enlight) and a light-cured glass ionomer cement GIC (Fuji Ortho LC) using various polymerization lamps (halogen, high performance halogen, xenon, and diode) for the direct bonding of brackets. The self-curing resin (Concise) was used as the control. The analysis was carried out using the SPSS program. For group comparison purposes, the single factor variance analysis (ANOVA) and the post-hoc test (Tukey's HSD) were used. The level of significance was established at P < 0.05. When comparing two mean values the t-test for independent random samples was employed. All polymerization lamps achieved the minimum bond strength of 5-8 MPa. With Enlight LV, bond strength was dependent on curing time (the halogen lamp achieved the highest bond strength of 10.0 MPa, P < 0.001, with a curing time of 40 seconds. The other lamps showed similar results) and on the mode of cure (the highest bond strength values were achieved by four-sided curing, P= 0.04). Fuji Ortho LC, on the other hand, was independent of the duration of light curing and the type of lamp used. The bond strengths of the resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) were similar to or somewhat higher than those achieved with light-cured composite resin (P = 0.039) when lamps with short polymerization times were used, but were significantly lower (P< 0.001) when compared with the self-curing composite adhesive. After 24 hours, the bond strengths of all adhesives showed a significant increase: Enlight 19 per cent, Fuji Ortho LC 6.6 per cent, Concise 16 per cent. Bond failure occurred for Enlight at the bracket-composite resin adhesive interface in 90 per cent and with Concise in 57 per cent. However, Fuji Ortho LC showed far more cohesive and mixed failures, indicating an improved bond between bracket and cement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.