Objective:The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of dental anomalies in the permanent dentition of individuals with Down Syndrome (DS) to increase the knowledge on the dental issues in this syndrome. Method:One hundred and five panoramic X-rays of patients with DS (61 males and 44 females), aged 7 to 42 years were used. The data were statistically analyzed using bivariate analyses test (p <0.05). Results:Dental anomalies were observed in 50.47% of the sample. More than one anomaly was observed in 9.52% of the individuals. The most frequent dental anomalies were hypodontia and microdontia (16.19%), followed by retained tooth (10.47%), taurodontism (9.52%), supernumerary teeth (5.71%), macrodontia (2.85%) and root dilaceration (0.95%). There was no statistically significant difference between genders for any of the anomalies. Conclusion: A high prevalence of dental anomalies was observed in individuals with DS. The results of the present study reinforce the importance of good dental care, offering a greater basis for professionals who provide dental service to these patients.

Objective To evaluate the esthetic perceptions of orthodontists and laypersons for facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment using Herbst or Forsus appliances. Materials and Methods Pre- and posttreatment facial profile contour images of 20 Class II patients treated with Herbst (group H; n = 10) and Forsus (group F; n = 10) appliances were analyzed by 30 orthodontists and 30 laypersons, who graded them from 1 (unattractive) to 10 (very attractive) using a visual analog scale. Two assessments were carried out with a 15 day-interval. In the first evaluation, 40 images were presented in a random sequence. In the second evaluation, initial and final facial profile images of each patient were randomly presented side by side. To compare groups in relation to treatment method, Mann-Whitney tests were used. To evaluate differences between time points, Wilcoxon tests were used. Results In the first evaluation, there was a significant difference between initial and final images only for group H, for both laypersons (P = .017) and orthodontists (P = .037). There was also a significant difference between laypersons and orthodontists in their ratings of posttreatment Herbst appliance profiles (P = .028). There was no significant difference between initial and final facial profile images for group F and no significant differences between or within evaluator groups in their ratings of initial or final Forsus appliance profiles. In the second evaluation, there was a significant difference between appliance groups only for laypersons, who considered cases treated with the Herbst appliance more attractive than those treated with the Forsus (P = .031). Laypersons also considered Herbst profiles more attractive than did orthodontists (P = .047). Conclusions Class II malocclusion treatment using the Herbst appliance may produce a more esthetically improved facial profile silhouette compared with Forsus appliances. The magnitude of perceived changes may not be considered clinically relevant.

Pain is an undesirable side effect of orthodontic tooth movement, which causes many patients to give up orthodontic treatment or avoid it altogether. The aim of this study was to investigate, through an analysis of the scientific literature, the best method for managing orthodontic pain. The methodological aspects involved careful definition of keywords and diligent search in databases of scientific articles published in the English language, without any restriction of publication date. We recovered 1281 articles. After the filtering and classification of these articles, 56 randomized clinical trials were selected. Of these, 19 evaluated the effects of different types of drugs for the control of orthodontic pain, 16 evaluated the effects of low-level laser therapy on orthodontic pain, and 21 evaluated other methods of pain control. Drugs reported as effective in orthodontic pain control included ibuprofen, paracetamol, naproxen sodium, aspirin, etoricoxib, meloxicam, piroxicam, and tenoxicam. Most studies report favorable outcomes in terms of alleviation of orthodontic pain with the use of low-level laser therapy. Nevertheless, we noticed that there is no consensus, both for the drug and for laser therapy, on the doses and clinical protocols most appropriate for orthodontic pain management. Alternative methods for orthodontic pain control can also broaden the clinician’s range of options in the search for better patient care.

Objectives: To evaluate the correlation between pain and tissue reactions during induced tooth movement (ITM). Materials and Methods: Forty-two male Wistar rats (Rattus norvegicus; ∼90 days of age, 300 g) were used. The animals were divided into seven groups of six rats each: one control group and six experimental groups subjected to ITM by continuous force (CF) or interrupted continuous force (ICF) for 1, 3, and 5 days. Hyalinization of the periodontal ligament (PL) and occurrence of pain were observed. Animal behavior (walking, climbing, immobile posture, resting/sleeping, and directed face grooming) and the presence of chemical mediators associated with nociception, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), and interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β) in the PL were analyzed. Results: There was a moderate positive correlation between hyalinization and the presence of COX-2 (rs = 0.404; P &lt; .05) and IL-1β (rs = 0.429; P &lt; .05). There was a moderate negative correlation between hyalinization and exploratory behaviors (walking, r = −0.586, P &lt; .01; climbing, r = −0.573, P &lt; .01), and a moderate positive correlation between hyalinization and resting/sleeping (r = 0.467; P &lt; .01). Conclusions: The results suggest a correlation between pain and undesirable tissue reactions in ITM.

Aim: To evaluate the dental development of Brazilian children and adolescents with cleft lip and palate. Methods: The sample consisted of 107 panoramic radiographs of children and adolescents with cleft lip and/or palate (cleft group) and 107 panoramic radiographs of children and adolescents without cleft lip and/or palate (control group), with chronological ages ranging from 6 to 15 years, matched in gender and chronological age within 60 days. Radiographs were digitized and masked and dental age was assessed using the method described by Demirjian et al. (1973). Three trained examiners conducted the assessments. Each examiner evaluated the radiographs three times. Data were statistically analyzed using non-parametric tests and univariate linear regression (p<0.05). Results: The dental age was overestimated in relation to the chronological age in both groups (p<0.0001). Compared to the control group, there was a delay in the dental age in the cleft group of 0.17 years (2.1 months). However, no statistically significant difference in the dental age between the cleft and the control group was found even when considering the different cleft types (p=0.152). Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in the dental age between the cleft and the control groups. The evaluation of dental development in individuals with cleft lip and palate should be approached in the same way as in individuals without clefts, with a focus on the individualization of diagnosis and treatment planning.