No abstract

Introduction: The relationship between temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and orthodontic treatment/malocclusion has changed from a cause-and-effect association to an idea without sufficient evidence. Objective: This survey was designed to assess the beliefs of different disciplines - orthodontists, oral surgeons, and oral medicine specialists - on the relationship between TMDs and orthodontic treatment, with regard to treatment, prevention and etiology of TMDs. Method: A survey in the form of questionnaire was designed and distributed to 180 orthodontists, 193 oral surgeons and 125 oral medicine specialists actively involved in treating TMDs. The questionnaire aimed to collect basic information about each participant and their beliefs, and clinical management of patients with TMDs. Results: Halve of the responding orthodontists and most of the oral surgeons (69.9%) were male participants, whereas the majority of oral medicine specialists (83.3%) were female respondents. The participants’ age ranged from 29 to 58 years. The majority of orthodontists believes that there is no relationship between orthodontic treatment and TMDs, and that orthodontic treatment does not provoke TMDs or prevent the onset of the disorder. However, oral surgeons and oral medicine specialists have different and conflicting opinions. Most surgeons tended to treat those patients, while most of the other two disciplines tended to seek an interdisciplinary approach. Chi-square test was done to find an association between the referral status and specialists’ experience, and to compare between the different disciplines’ belief. Conclusions: Orthodontist’s beliefs were in accordance with the scientific evidence, whereas most oral surgeons and oral medicine specialist believed that orthodontic treatment may provoke TMDs. Therefore, continuing program series development is important to embrace the concept of the multidisciplinary team approach and improve the health care and quality of life for those patients.

This study aimed at evaluating the precision of the segmented tooth model (STM) that was produced by the artificial intelligence (AI) program (CephX®) with an intraoral scan (IOS) and insignia outcomes. Methods. 10 patients with Cl I malocclusion (mild-to-moderate crowding) who underwent nonextraction orthodontic therapy with the Insignia™ system had IOS and CBCT scans taken before treatment. AI was used to produce a total of 280 STMs; each tooth will be measured from three aspects (apexo-occlusal, mesiodistal, and labiolingual) for DICOM and STL formats. Also, root volume measurements for each tooth generated by using the CephX® software and Insignia™ system were compared. The software used for these measurements was the OnDemand3D program used for the multiplanar reconstruction for DICOM format and Geomagic® Control X™ used for STL format. Statistics. An intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis was used to check the agreement between the volume measurement of the segmented teeth generated by using the CephX® and Insignia™ system. Also, it was used to check the agreement between the STL (IOS), STL (CephX®), and DICOM tooth models. In addition, it was used to determine the intraexaminer repeatability by remeasuring five randomly selected individuals two weeks after the initial measurement. After confirmation of the data normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test, the right and left tooth models and the differences between the DICOM, CephX® (STL), and IOS (STL) tooth models were compared using a paired t-test. The STL (IOS), STL (CephX®), and DICOM tooth models were compared utilizing the ANOVA test. p < 0.05 was set as the statistical significance level. Result. Overall data showed good agreement with ICC. The measurements of the various tooth types on the right and left sides did not differ significantly. Also, there was no significant difference between the three groups. Conclusions. The automatic AI approach (CephX®) may be advised in the clinical practice for patients with mild crowding and no teeth restorations due to its speed and effectiveness.

Background: Pain is one of the most reported side effects of orthodontic treatment despite the advanced technology in orthodontics. Many analgesics have been introduced to control orthodontic pain including acetaminophen and selective and nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The great concern about these drugs is their adverse effect on rate of teeth movement. Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect of acetaminophen, ibuprofen and etoricoxib on pain perception and their influence on the rate of teeth movement during leveling and alignment stage. Methods: Forty patients were evenly and randomly distributed in a blinded way to one of four groups: placebo (starch capsules), acetaminophen 500mg thrice daily, ibuprofen 400mg thrice daily, and etoricoxib 60mg once daily. The drugs were given one hour before bonding and archwire placement and continued for three days. A visual analogue scale was used to express pain levels before and after archwire placement, on the first, second, third, and seventh day. Little’s irregularity index was measured before bonding and at every activation visit until the end of the alignment and leveling stage. Results: All three drugs showed a lower pain level than placebo at the bonding and first activation visits. Etoricoxib showed the least pain level among other drugs followed by ibuprofen. No statistically significant differences were found between the drug groups and the placebo at the second and third activation visits. No statistically significant differences were detected between the 4 experimental groups concerning the rate of teeth movement. Conclusions: The three drugs were only effective in controlling pain during the first two visits of orthodontic treatment; and etoricoxib 60mg/day was the best. All three drugs had no influence on rate of teeth movement when used in their least recommended dose.

Background: Bracket rebonding is a common problem in orthodontics which may result in many drawbacks. The aims of this study were to evaluate the effects of application of two enamel protective agents "Icon" and "ProSeal" on shear bond strength before and after rebonding of stainless steel orthodontic brackets using conventional orthodontic adhesive and to assess the site of bond failure. Materials and methods: Fifty sound extracted human upper first premolar teeth were selected and randomly divided into two equal groups; the first time bonding and the rebonding groups (n=30). Each group was subdivided into control, Icon and ProSeal subgroups. The enamel protective agents were applied after etching (preconditioners). Shear bond strength before and after rebonding of stainless steel brackets were assessed using the Universal testing machine and the adhesive remnant index was used to find out the bond failure site using a stereomicroscope. Then the results were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA analysis test and T-test. Results: There were no significant differences in the shear bond strength mean values in either group or their corresponding subgroups. Forty percentage of the bond failure in ProSeal groups occurred away from the enamel where 75% of those were at the enamel protective agents/adhesive interface. Conclusions: The application of Icon and ProSeal did not compromise the shear bond strength and the application of the ProSeal may protect the enamel surface from trauma (cracks, chipping or detachment).

Background: Orthodontic therapy often causes external root resorption. Serum vitamin D (VD) level is important for tooth mineralization and bone remodeling. This study aimed to test the impact of vitamin D (VD) supplements on bone and root remodelling in a vitamin D (VD) deficient rat model following orthodontic retention. Methods and Material: 30 male Wistar rats were divided into three groups: a control group of 10 rats and two experimental groups of 10 rats each with vitamin D deficiency (VDD) induced by a VD-free diet for 21 days. And a third group with VD supplementAll groups received orthodontic active treatment using a modified orthodontic appliance that applied 50 gm of force for 14 days to move the maxillary right first molar mesially, followed by 7 days of retention and relapse. The VDD group received no intervention, while the VDS group received 40,000 IU/kg of systemic VD3 by intramuscular injection on the first and fifteenth day of orthodontic treatment. Histomorphometric analysis was performed to assess bone and cementum resorption and deposition. Results: The VDD group exhibited a significant increase in bone and root resorption and a decrease in bone deposition and ce-mentum deposition ratio. In addition, bone deposition and the ratio of cementum deposition were substantially greater in the VDS group compared to the control group. Conclusion: VDD may increase bone and root cementum resorption and decrease deposition after orthodontic retention, which may play a significant role in relapse after retention. Prior to beginning orthodontic treatment, routine VD screening may be beneficial.