No abstract

Introduction: McNamara’s Jr. cephalometric analysis is a tool to diagnose dental and skeletal discrepancies and is widely used, guiding diagnosis for surgical procedures to be performed or for the use of functional devices. Few studies have shown that different ethnic groups have different cephalometric patterns. Thus, single characteristics should be respected to support the diagnosis and to help the treatment plan for different ethnic groups and their different patterns of miscegenation. Objective: Obtain normal values for McNamara’s cephalometric analysis for adolescent Japanese-Brazilian descents with normal occlusion, as well as to compare this sample with similar samples of White-Brazilian and Japanese. Methods: Lateral headfilms from 40 White-Brazilian, 33 Japanese and 32 Japanese-Brazilian descents were selected. The three groups were composed by individuals with normal occlusion, well-balanced profiles and were separated by sex. The data were statistically analyzed with ANOVA, t-test, ANCOVA and MANCOVA tests. Results: White-Brazilian males had significantly greater nasolabial angle than Japanese males. Japanese-Brazilian displayed an intermediate value between White-Brazilian and Japanese. Conclusion: White-Brazilian, Japanese and Japanese-Brazilian present different cephalometric characteristics of McNamara analysis. Japanese males have a significantly more acute nasolabial angle than White-Brazilian subjects.

Introduction: Finding a method to decrease orthodontic treatment time has been a concern for several authors. This study evaluated, clinically and radiographically, the influence of low-level laser therapy on the rate of orthodontic movement and dental tissue integrity. Methods: The sample included 11 individuals with class I malocclusion, requiring extraction of 4 first premolars. Gallium aluminum arsenide diode laser with a wavelength of 780 nm was used once a month during retraction mechanics, to irradiate the maxillary and mandibular canines on one side and compare them with the nonirradiated contralateral side, after spring activation, until canine retraction was completed. This was followed by movement measurement. Periapical radiographs were used to check for possible modifications in the supporting tissues and root surface of the displaced canines. Results: No differences in the rate of tooth movement were found between the irradiated and nonirradiated side on both dental arches. There was no resorption of the root and/or alveolar bone crest, maintaining the integrity of these tissues. Conclusions: Low-level laser therapy did not promote an increment on the rate of tooth movement and did not cause greater root and alveolar bone crest resorption than on the nonirradiated side with the used protocol.