The Hawley retainer (HR) and the vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) are the most common removable retainers in orthodontic treatments. The aim of this retrospective study was to comparatively analyze the behavior of two types of removable retainers—HRs and VFRs—in terms of retainer damage, loss, and the rate of installation of mild or severe relapse that required recourse to certain therapeutic interventions. The study was performed on 618 orthodontic patients aged 11–17 years, average age 13.98 ± 1.51, out of which 57% were patients having VFRs and the remaining 43% having HRs in the upper arch. We performed an analysis of the two groups of patients—HRs group and VFRs group—at 6 months (T1) and at 12 months (T2) after the application of the retainer. The results showed that 6% of all the retainers were damaged, mostly at T2 (54.1%). Seven percent of all the retainers were lost, mostly at T1 (58.1%). Of all the patients, 9.1% presented mild relapse, mostly at T1 (58.9%), while 2.6% presented severe relapse. The VFRs were significantly more frequently associated with the occurrence of damage than the HRs (p < 0.001). Severe relapse was more frequently associated with the HRs rather than with VFRs (p < 0.05).

Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic led to restrictive measures, which aimed to limit the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. These restrictions impacted all areas of life, including the activity of dental offices. For patients with orthodontic appliances, closing the dental offices was a major issue, as most orthodontic treatments last for more than a year and require regular checkups. The aim of this research was to assess the impact that the restrictive measures that were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and, especially, wearing a face mask had on a sample of Romanian teenagers undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. Material and Methods: The study group consisted of 277 orthodontic patients, with ages between 12 and 17.9 years, from North-Western Romania. They completed a 9-item questionnaire. The control group consisted of 231 participants, with ages between 12 and 17.9 years. They completed an 8-item questionnaire. Results: Most patients from the study group were not worried that wearing a protective face mask would hide their braces (never—49.5%; rarely—26.7%), and their desire to undergo an orthodontic treatment was not affected by the compulsoriness of face mask wearing (never—51.6%; rarely—26%). In contrast to that, in the control group, more than 50% of the participants were worried to some degree that wearing a protective face mask would hide their smile (occasionally—29.9%; frequently—18.2%; very frequently—2.2%). The majority of the participants from the study group did not consider interrupting the orthodontic treatment due to the COVID-19 pandemic (62.5%), and the majority of the participants from the control group did not consider not going to the dentist due to the COVID-19 pandemic (70.6%). Most of the participants from the study group were not happy that they had to wear a face mask, which covered their orthodontic appliances, during the orthodontic treatment (68.6%). The attitude was similar to that of the participants from the control group, who were not happy that they had to wear a face mask, that covered their smile (51.1%). In the study group, most patients did not want face mask wearing to continue to be compulsory, given the fact that their orthodontic appliances were no longer visible (52%). In the control group, the attitude was similar, with 48.1% of the participants not wanting face mask compulsoriness to be maintained. Conclusions: In conclusion, although, most patients would not like to continue wearing a face mask as a mandatory regulation, they were not concerned or negatively affected by wearing a protective face mask, even though face masks hid their braces.

Our study is based on the hypothesis that the prevalence of malocclusions in children is higher in the mining areas from North-Western (NW) Romania than in other geographic areas. We also considered that the distribution of the different types of malocclusions can be correlated with environmental factors. Therefore, the main purpose of the current study was to assess the prevalence of malocclusions in children from the mining areas in NW Romania. Another purpose was to establish the influence of certain environmental factors such as gender, geographical area of origin, and ethnicity on the distribution of malocclusions in order to provide an epidemiological reference for the planning of preventive and treatment programs adapted to the particularity of the mining areas. This cross-sectional study was performed in 2015–2016. The study batch consisted of 960 children from the mining areas, aged 7–14 years, in the period of mixed dentition and early permanent dentition. The clinical examination was conducted by a single examiner, an orthodontic specialist (TBI), in order to avoid inter-operator bias. Occlusion was registered according to Bjoerk. Occlusal clinical signs were followed for the determination of malocclusions. Most children had malocclusions (93.5%). The percentage of anomalies was significantly higher in subjects from Rosia Montana, in girls, and in the Romanians. Data showed that Angle Class I was the most prevalent malocclusion (60.21%), followed by crowding (47.5%), midline shift (43.33%), and deep bite (28.65%). The independent association between ethnicity and total malocclusions shows that the Romanian subjects presented a 3.31 higher chance of developing malocclusions than the Romani ones. The presence of malocclusions was independently influenced by all the studied environmental factors, namely gender, geographical area, and ethnicity. Our results could be relevant for oral health policy-making, i.e., planning preventive and treatment measures of malocclusions, adapted to the peculiarity of the studied mining areas.

The aim of this study was to review the literature and evaluate the failure rates and factors that affect the stability and success of temporary anchorage devices (TADs) used as orthodontic anchorage. Data was collected from electronic databases: MEDLINE database and Google Scholar. Four combinations of term were used as keywords: “micro-implant”, “mini-implant”, “mini-screw”, and “orthodontics”. The following selection criteria were used to select appropriate articles: articles on implants and screws used as orthodontic anchorage, published in English, with both prospective and retrospective clinical and experimental investigations. The search provided 209 abstracts about TADs used as anchorage. After reading and applying the selection criteria, 66 articles were included in the study. The data obtained were divided into two topics: which factors affected TAD success rate and to what degree and in how many articles they were quoted. Clinical factors were divided into three main groups: patient-related, implant related, and management-related factors. Although all articles included in this meta-analysis reported success rates of greater than 80 percent, the factors determining success rates were inconsistent between the studies analyzed and this made conclusions difficult.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency in using intermaxillary elastics to stimulate mandibular growth and advancement in orthodontic patients diagnosed with skeletal Class II malocclusion as well as to compare the use of these Class II elastics in two different therapeutic approaches. The sample consisted of 60 orthodontic patients aged 10-15 years, 34 girls and 26 boys. The sample was divided into two equal groups (each consisting of 30 patients). Patients belonging to the first group (Group 1) were subjected to 1/4�� - 6.0 oz elastics and were advised to change the elastic every 24 hours. Patients belonging to the second group (Group 2) were subjected to 1/4�- 4.5 oz elastics but with a recommendation to change the elastics every 12 hours. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of these two types of Class II elastics on mandibular growth and advancement, the value of the SNB angle at the beginning of the treatment (T1) was compared with the value of the SNB angle after 5 months of wearing intermaxillary elastics (T2). All patients showed statistically significant increased values of the SNB angle during the orthodontic treatment (p[0.001). Patients in Group 2 showed a significantly higher statistical increase (p[0.05) than patients in Group 1.

Dental age assessment is useful in various medical fields. The Demirjian method for dental age estimation is one of the most widely used in the field of pediatric dentistry. The aim of this study was to verify the accuracy of the Demirjian method in determining age in a sample of girls and boys from Oradea, Romania. This retrospective and radiographic study was based on the evaluation of 1006 panoramic radiographs, belonging to 1006 patients (431 boys and 575 girls) with ages between 3 and 13.9 years from the city of Oradea, Romania. They were collected from three private dental practices from Oradea and were analyzed between 1 September 2021, and 10 November 2021. The patients were distributed into 11 age groups, each group spanning over one year (e.g., 3–3.9, 4–4.9). For the assessment of dental age, the Demirjian method was used, which is based on the evaluation of the developmental stages of the lower left permanent teeth. The mean chronological age of the patients was 9.496 ± 2.218 years, and the mean dental age was 10.934 ± 2.585 years. The overestimation of dental age was obtained in all age groups for the entire sample. As such, dental age was higher than chronological age, with values varying from 0.34 years in the 3–3.9 years age group to 1.7 years in the 10–10.9 years age group. In girls, dental age was higher than chronological age, with values varying from 0.46 years in the 3–3.9 years age group to 1.73 years in the 11–11.9 years age group, while in boys, the values varied from 0.15 years in the first age group to 2.02 years in the 10–10.9 years age group. The comparison of the differences between chronological age and dental age according to the gender of the patients revealed that the distribution of the differences was nonparametric in both groups according to the Shapiro–Wilk test (p < 0.05). The differences between the groups were not significant according to the Mann–Whitney U test. However, larger differences were identified for boys (1.46 years) than girls (1.417 years), with an overestimation of the dental age. The Demirjian method overestimated the age of the children included in the investigated sample, with different values for the different age groups investigated, and requires adaptations.

The assessment of an individual’s development by investigating the skeletal maturity is of much use in various medical fields. Skeletal maturity can be estimated by evaluating the morphology of the cervical vertebrae. The aim of this study was to conduct comparisons of the chronological age in different bone development stages. The retrospective study was conducted based on lateral cephalometric radiographs belonging to patients with ages between 6 and 15.9 years, from Romania. For the assessment of skeletal maturity, the Cervical Vertebral Maturation (CVM) method was used. In total, 356 radiographs were selected, but after applying the exclusion criteria, 252 radiographs remained in the study (178 girls and 74 boys). Different mean chronological age values were obtained for the general sample, as well as for the two genders. The chronological age started to be significantly different at the CS4 stage. Patients with CS4, CS5, and CS6 stages had a significantly higher chronological age compared to patients with CS1, CS2, and CS3 stages. It was noted that patients with CS1 and CS2 stages were more frequently boys, while patients with the CS5 stage were more frequently girls.

Background and Objectives: Smile is an important mark of beauty, and smile attractiveness can be influenced by various factors, one of these being the amount of gingival exposure. The aim of this research was to evaluate the perception of an ideal gingival exposure in smile in a sample of Romanian dentists and laypersons, and to find out what is the most important aspect that influences the smile perception for the respondents included in the study sample. Materials and Methods: An online survey was conducted between 3 February 2020 and 31 October 2020. The authors developed a short questionnaire consisting of 7 items. The first four items investigated the respondents’ age, gender, profession and whether or not they underwent an orthodontic treatment in the past. For items 5 and 6, participants had to choose the most and the least attractive amount of gingival exposure, and for the last item they had to choose the factor that mostly influences the smile attractiveness in their opinion. Results: 235 questionnaires remained in the study. The sample consisted of 194 women and 41 men, 162 laypersons and 73 dentists. The average value for the most attractive amount of gingival exposure was −0.57 ± 2.407 mm, with a median value of 0 mm while the average value for the least attractive amount of gingival exposure was 1.43 ± 3.785 mm, with a median value of 4 mm. The differences between the most or least attractive gingival exposure perceived by the participants were not significant according to gender or professional category (p > 0.05), but, when compared between having or not having an orthodontic treatment in the past the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). As such, participants who had an orthodontic treatment in the past perceived a significantly higher value for the most attractive gingival exposure, and a significantly higher value for the least attractive gingival exposure (p = 0.026) than the participants who didn’t have an orthodontic treatment in the past. As for the factor that mainly influences smile attractiveness, laypersons chose significantly more frequent white teeth or aligned teeth (96%, 71.7%) while dentists chose significantly more frequent a gingival exposure between 0–3 mm (70.4%) as smile factors for an aesthetic smile (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this study sample, the respondents considered that the most attractive smile involved a covering of 0.57 mm (in average) of the upper incisors by the upper lip. Although smile attractiveness did not appear to be influenced by gender or profession in this study population, it was influenced by previous orthodontic treatment. The participants’ roles of dentist or layperson influenced the factors chosen for an aesthetic smile.