Objective: To evaluate the velocity of canine retraction, anchorage loss and changes on canine and first molar inclinations using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five adults with Class I malocclusion and a treatment plan involving extractions of four first premolars were selected for this randomized split-mouth control trial. Patients had either conventional or self-ligating brackets bonded to maxillary canines randomly. Retraction was accomplished using 100-g nickel-titanium closed coil springs, which were reactivated every 4 weeks. Oblique radiographs were taken before and after canine retraction was completed, and the cephalograms were superimposed on stable structures of the maxilla. Cephalometric points were digitized twice by a blinded operator for error control, and the following landmarks were collected: canine cusp and apex horizontal changes, molar cusp and apex horizontal changes, and angulation changes in canines and molars. The blinded data, which were normally distributed, were analyzed through paired t-tests for group differences. Results: No differences were found between the two groups for all variables tested. Conclusions: Both brackets showed the same velocity of canine retraction and loss of anteroposterior anchorage of the molars. No changes were found between brackets regarding the inclination of canines and first molars. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:846-852.)

Objectives: The purpose of this two-arm parallel trial was to compare en masse (ER) and two-step retraction (TSR) during space closure. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight adult patients with bimaxillary protrusion who were planned for treatment with extraction of four first premolars were enrolled. All patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the ER (n = 24) group or the TSR (n = 24) group. The main outcome was the amount of posterior anchorage loss in the molars and the retraction of the incisors between ER and TSR; the difference in incisor and molar inclination was a secondary outcome. Lateral cephalometric radiographs and oblique cephalometric radiographs at 45° were taken before retraction (T1) and after space closure (T2). Cephalograms were digitized and superimposed on the anatomic best fit of the maxilla and mandible by one operator who was blinded to the treatment group. Results: Neither incisor nor molar crown movements showed any significant differences between the ER and TSR. There were no significant differences in the tipping of incisors and molars between the two groups. Conclusions: No significant differences existed in the amount of retraction of incisors and anchorage loss of molars between ER and TSR. Changes in incisor and molar tipping were similar, with the crowns showing more movement than the apex.

Objectives: To compare the time to close extraction spaces between en masse (ER) and two-step retraction (TSR). Materials and Methods: Forty-eight patients with bimaxillary protrusion underwent treatment with extraction of four first premolars. All patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups: ER (n = 24) or TSR (n = 24). The main outcome was the time required to close spaces between ER and TSR; the closing time of spaces between females and males was a secondary outcome. The size of premolars was measured on the models and data were collected on clinical records at the following times: retraction start date (T1) and space closure completion date (T2). The total time to close the extraction spaces was calculated for each extracted premolar (T1 to T2). The Kaplan Meier method and the Log-Rank test were used to compare the groups. Results: The time to close extraction spaces showed significant differences between the ER and TSR groups. While ER took between 12.1 and 13.8 months, TSR took between 24.7 and 26.8 months. The TSR group showed a significant difference between sexes; male patients took 5.5 months longer than female patients for the extraction spaces to close. Conclusions: TSR takes between 1.8 and 2.2 times longer than ER to close the extraction spaces and it took longer in males than females.

No abstract

There is a wide variety of procedures adopted by Brazilian orthodontists for orthodontic space closure and anchorage control.

Although maxillary central incisors impaction is not a high frequent clinical condition, it is RESUMOA impacção de incisivos centrais superiores é uma condição clínica que embora não seja muito frequente, é um fator desagradável do ponto de vista estético e funcional. Existem diversas causas dessa alteração e a literatura é consensual quanto à necessidade da realização do diagnóstico e da intervenção o mais precocemente possível. Este trabalho traz o relato de um caso clínico de um paciente com 10 anos de idade, na fase da dentição mista, com má oclusão de Classe I, impacção de incisivos centrais superiores associado à retenção prolongada dos decíduos e a presença de dois supra-numerários na linha média. A conduta proposta foi à remoção cirúrgica dos mesiodens, colagem de dispositivos ortodônticos nos incisivos centrais impactados e, tracionamento ortodôntico com aparelho removível. Desta forma, embora a época de tratamento não fosse a ideal, pois o diagnóstico deveria ter sido estabelecido o mais precocemente possível, alcançou-se um resultado estético e funcional favorável.Termos de indexação: Má oclusão. Ortodontia. Dente impactado. Orthodontic traction of impacted upper central incisors related to mesiodensTracionamento ortodôntico de incisivos centrais superiores impactados associados à presença de mesiodens

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the influence of the skeletal maturation in the mandibular and dentoalveolar growth and development during the Class II, division 1, malocclusion correction with Balters bionator. METHODS: Three groups of children with Class II, division 1, malocclusion were evaluated. Two of them were treated for one year with the bionator of Balters appliance in different skeletal ages (Group 1: 6 children, 7 to 8 years old and Group 2: 10 children, 9 to 10 years old) and the other one was followed without treatment (Control Group: 7 children, 8 to 9 years old). Lateral 45 degree cephalometric radiographs were used for the evaluation of the mandibular growth and dentoalveolar development. Tantalum metallic implants were used as fixed and stable references for radiograph superimposition and data acquisition. Student's t test was used in the statistical analysis of the displacement of the points in the condyle, ramus, mandibular base and dental points. Analysis of variance one-fixed criteria was used to evaluate group differences (95% of level of significance). RESULTS: The intragroup evaluation showed that all groups present significant skeletal growth for all points analyzed (1.2 to 3.7 mm), but in an intergroup comparison, the increment of the mandibular growth in the condyle, ramus and mandibular base were not statically different. For the dentoalveolar modifications, the less mature children showed greater labial inclination of the lower incisors (1.86 mm) and the most mature children showed greater first permanent molar extrusion (4.8 mm).

No abstract