Patients treated with traditional fixed appliances reported greater discomfort and consumed more analgesics than patients treated with aligners. This trial was not registered.

Introduction: Space closure is one of the most challenging processes in Orthodontics and requires a solid comprehension of biomechanics in order to avoid undesirable side effects. Understanding the biomechanical basis of space closure better enables clinicians to determine anchorage and treatment options. In spite of the variety of appliance designs, space closure can be performed by means of friction or frictionless mechanics, and each technique has its advantages and disadvantages. Friction mechanics or sliding mechanics is attractive because of its simplicity; the space site is closed by means of elastics or coil springs to provide force, and the brackets slide on the orthodontic archwire. On the other hand, frictionless mechanics uses loop bends to generate force to close the space site, allowing differential moments in the active and reactive units, leading to a less or more anchorage control, depending on the situation. Objective: This article will discuss various theoretical aspects and methods of space closure based on biomechanical concepts.

BackgroundThis study evaluated the reliability and validity of one extraoral [Ortho Insight 3D™ (Motionview Software, Hixson, TN/USA)] and two intraoral [ITero™ (Align Technologies, San Jose, CA/USA) and Lythos™ (Ormco Corp., Orange, CA/USA)] scanners.MethodsFifteen dry human mandibles were scanned twice with each of the scanners, and digital models were generated. Five measurements were made on the dry mandibles and on each of the generated models, including intermolar width, intercanine width, posterior arch length, premolar crown diameter, and canine height. Systematic and random errors were evaluated based on replicate analyses. Differences were assessed using paired Student’s t tests.ResultsReplicate analyses showed statistically significant systematic errors for only one measure (intermolar width measured from Ortho Insight 3D scans). Measurements taken from all three scanners were highly reliable, with intraclass correlations ranging from .926 to .999. Method errors were all less than 0.25 mm (averaged ≈0.12 mm). Posterior arch length and canine height were significantly smaller when measured on the Ortho Insight 3D scans than when measured on the dry mandibles and significantly smaller than when measured from the ITero and Lythos models.ConclusionsWhile all three scanners produced reliable measures, Ortho Insight 3D systematically underestimated arch length and canine height.

No abstract

INTRODUCTION: Although lip bumpers (LBs) provide significant clinical gain of mandibular arch perimeter in mixed-dentition patients, orthodontists are reluctant to use them due to the possibility of permanent second molar eruptive disturbances. OBJECTIVE: The present study was conducted to assess second molar impaction associated with the use of LBs, and to investigate how they can be solved. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Lateral and panoramic radiographs of 67 patients (34 females and 33 males) were assessed prior (T1) and post-LB treatment (T2). LB therapy lasted for approximately 1.8 ± 0.9 years. Concomitant rapid palatal expansion (RPE) was performed in the maxilla at LB treatment onset. Impaction of mandibular second molars was assessed by means of panoramic radiographs in relation to the position of first mandibular molars. Horizontal and vertical movements of first and second molars were assessed cephalometrically on lateral cephalometric radiographs based on mandibular superimpositions. RESULTS: Eight (11.9%) patients had impacted second molars at the end of LB therapy. Two patients required surgical correction, whereas five required spacers and one patient was self-corrected. Mandibular first molar tip and apex migrated forward 1.3 mm and 2.3 mm, respectively. Second molar tip showed no statistically significant horizontal movement. CONCLUSION: Although LB therapy increased the risk of second molar impaction, impactions were, in most instances, easily solved.

Objective: To determine class and sex differences in mandibular growth and modeling. Materials and Methods: A mixed-longitudinal sample of 130 untreated French-Canadian adolescents, 77 (45 boys and 32 girls) with Class I (normal or abnormal) occlusion and 53 (26 boys and 27 girls) with Class II division 1 malocclusion, was used. Based on eight landmarks, eight traditional measurements were used to compare the anteroposterior position of the maxilla and mandible, relationship between the jaws, and mandibular size. Mandibular superimpositions were used to compare the horizontal and vertical changes of condylion, gonion, and menton. Results: While there were no differences in maxillary position based on the SNA angle, Class IIs had more retrognathic mandibles than did Class Is. Total mandibular length was greater in Class Is than in Class IIs at 15 years of age. Superior and total growth and modeling changes at condylion and gonion, respectively, were greater for Class Is than Class IIs. Boys were more prognathic than girls; they had larger mandibles and exhibited greater size increases and growth changes than girls did. Conclusions: There are both class and sex differences in mandibular growth and modeling. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:755-761.)

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the dental, dentoalveolar, and skeletal changes occurring right after the rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and slow maxillary expansion (SME) treatment using Haas-type expander. METHODS: All subjects performed cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) before installation of expanders (T1) and right after screw stabilization (T2). Patients who did not follow the research parameters were excluded. The final sample resulted in 21 patients in RME group (mean age of 8.43 years) and 16 patients in SME group (mean age of 8.70 years). Based on the skewness and kurtosis statistics, the variables were judged to be normally distributed and paired t-test and student t-test were performed at significance level of 5%.RESULTS: Intermolar angle changed significantly due to treatment and RME showed greater buccal tipping than SME. RME showed significant changes in other four measurements due to treatment: maxilla moved forward and mandible showed backward rotation and, at transversal level both skeletal and dentoalveolar showed significant changes due to maxillary expansion. SME showed significant dentoalveolar changes due to maxillary expansion.CONCLUSIONS: Only intermolar angle showed significant difference between the two modalities of maxillary expansion with greater buccal tipping for RME. Also, RME produced skeletal maxillary expansion and SME did not. Both maxillary expansion modalities were efficient to promote transversal gain at dentoalveolar level. Sagittal and vertical measurements did not show differences between groups, but RME promoted a forward movement of the maxilla and backward rotation of the mandible.

No abstract