Objectives: To investigate the predictability of arch expansion using Invisalign. Materials and Methods: Sixty-four adult white patients were selected to be part of this retrospective study. Pre-and posttreatment digital models created from an iTero scan were obtained from a single orthodontist practitioner. Digital models from Clincheck were also obtained from Align Technology. Linear values of upper and lower arch widths were measured for canines, premolars, and first molars at two different points: lingual gingival margins and cusp tips. A paired ttest was used to compare expansion planned on Clincheck with the posttreatment measurements. Variance ratio tests were used to determine if a larger change planned was associated with larger error.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective To compare and evaluate longitudinally the dental arch relationships from 4.5 to 13.5 years of age with the Bauru-BCLP Yardstick in a large sample of patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). Design Retrospective longitudinal intercenter outcome study. Patients Dental casts of 204 consecutive patients with complete BCLP were evaluated at 6,9, and 12 years of age. All models were identified only by random identification numbers. Setting Three cleft palate centers with different treatment protocols. Main Outcome Measures Dental arch relationships were categorized with the Bauru-BCLP yardstick. Increments for each interval (from 6 to 9 years, 6 to 12 years, and 9 to 12 years) were analyzed by logistic and linear regression models. Results There were no significant differences in outcome measures between the centers at age 12 or at age 9. At age 6, center B showed significantly better results (p = .027), but this difference diminished as the yardstick score for this group increased over time (linear regression analysis), the difference with the reference category (center C, boys) for the intervals 6 to 12 and 9 to 12 years being 10.4% (p = .041) and 12.9% (p = .009), respectively. Conclusions Despite different treatment protocols, dental arch relationships in the three centers were comparable in final scores at age 9 and 12 years. Delaying hard palate closure and employing infant orthopedics did not appear to be advantageous in the long run. Premaxillary osteotomy employed in center B appeared to be associated with less favorable development of the dental arch relationship between 9 and 12 years.

the performance of the students with learning disabilities in auditory and phonological tasks is lower when compared to the students without learning disabilities. The use of the auditory training program was effective and allowed students to develop these skills.

RESUMOObjetivo: caracterizar o desempenho em tarefas fonológicas e silábicas de escolares com dislexia do desenvolvimento e comparar estes achados com o desempenho de discentes com bom desempenho escolar. Métodos: participaram do estudo 26 alunos de oito a 12 anos de idade, de ambos os sexos, de 2ª. a 4ª. séries do Ensino Fundamental municipal na cidade de Marilia-SP, divididas em GI: composto por 13 escolares com dislexia atendidos no Centro de Estudos da Educação e Saúde -CEES/ UNESP e GII: composto por 13 alunos com bom desempenho acadêmico, pareados segundo sexo, idade e escolaridade com o GI. Como procedimento foi utilizada a Prova de Consciência Fonológica -Instrumento de Avaliação Seqüencial -CONFIAS. Os resultados foram analisados estatisticamente pelo Teste Mann-Whitney (comparação entre os grupos) e Teste dos Postos Sinalizados-Wilcoxon (comparação entre as variáveis). Resultados: os resultados evidenciaram diferença estatisticamente significante, sugerindo melhor desempenho do GII em relação ao GI quanto às tarefas fonêmicas e silábicas. O GI apresentou diferença estatisticamente significativa nas tarefas silábicas e fonêmicas, com melhor desempenho nas primeiras. Entre os escolares do GII não houve grande diferença estatística entre tarefas silábicas, apenas entre tarefas fonêmicas. Conclusão: o estudo concluiu que escolares com dislexia do desenvolvimento apresentam dificuldades quanto à identificação de rima e produção de palavras com o som dado, apontando para um déficit em acessar os códigos e as representações fonológicas. pequenas unidades de fala, denominados fonema, correspondem a letras. A consciência de que a lín-gua é composta de pequenos sons é fundamental para aprender a ler e produzir a escrita alfabética. A proficiência em decodificação de palavras em segmentos menores tem relação com melhor desempenho futuro em leitura [1][2][3][4] . O sistema alfabético de escrita associa um componente auditivo fonêmico a um componente visual gráfico (correspondência grafofonêmica) e para a compreensão do princípio alfabético são necessá-rios três fatores: a consciência de que é possível segmentar a língua falada em unidades distintas; o conhecimento de que essas mesmas unidades repetem-se em diferentes palavras faladas e a ciên-cia das regras de correspondência entre grafemas e fonemas. Destaca-se que os dois primeiros fatores são aspectos da consciência fonológica, e isto a DESCRITORES: INTRODUÇÃOAprender a ler e a escrever em uma língua alfabética significa que a criança deve entender que as 

Audi tory processing disorder is a clinical entity that may be associated with several neuropathological disorders -learning disabilities among them. Aim: to characterize and compare the performance of students with and without learning disabilities in speech tests with and without background noise, dichotic listening tests, alternating dissyllable test. Materials and methods: 40 students of both genders, ranging from 8 to 12 years of age participated in this study. They were divided in two groups: GI -20 students with learning disabilities and GII -20 students with good academic performance matched according to gender, age and education with GI. The evaluation consisted of basic audiological evaluation and applying dichotic listening tests, alternating disyllable test and speech test in noise. Study design: this is a cross-sectional study with a historical cohort. Results: the students of GI presented inferior performance compared to Group II (GII), both on dichotic listening tests and on alternating disyllable tests, and performance with no statistically significant difference on the speech in noise test. Conclusion: The evidence found suggests that the group of children with learning disabilities shows inferior performance compared to the group without problems, reflecting difficulties on the processing of auditory information.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the longitudinal stability of two types of posterior crossbite correction: rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and slow maxillary expansion (SME). METHODS: Study casts of 90 adolescent patients were assessed for interdental width changes at three different periods: pretreatment (T1), post-treatment (T2) and at least, five years post-retention (T3). Three groups of 30 patients were established according to the treatment received to correct posterior crossbite: Group A (RME), group B (SME) and group C (control- Edgewise therapy only). After crossbite correction, all patients received fixed edgewise orthodontic appliances. Paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA were used to identify significant intra and intergroup changes, respectively (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Except for intercanine distance, all widths increased in groups A and B from T1 to T2. In the long-term, the amount of relapse was not different for groups A and B, except for 3-3 widths which showed greater decrease in group A. However, the percentage of clinically relapsed cases of posterior crossbite was similar for rapid and slow maxillary expansion. CONCLUSION: Rapid and slow maxillary expansion showed similar stability in the long-term.