No abstract

Objectives: The study aimed to investigate the optimum level for the placement of ramal implants as a source of anchorage for disimpacting mandibular molars. The criteria in relation to the maximum transverse width of the ramal bone and proximity of the implant to the inferior alveolar canal (IAC) were evaluated using a three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography scan for predictable placement of ramal implants. Material and Methods: The cone-beam computed tomographic scans of 53 untreated patients (aged between 18 and 48 years) were utilized in this study. The maximum transverse width of the ramus and the proximity to the IAC from the site of insertion were measured at six different levels above the central groove of the mandibular first molar. To measure the proximity to the IAC, the mid-point of the maximum transverse width of the ramus was selected as the site of insertion of the implant. Results: The maximum and minimum transverse ramal width was 12.48 ± 1.76 mm at 3 mm and 10.42 ± 2.08 mm at 8 mm above the central groove of the permanent mandibular first molar. An average clearance of 9.62 ± 2.59 mm was measured from the site of insertion to the IAC at the different levels evaluated. Conclusion: The ramus of the mandible can be a predictable site for implant placement provided the variations in the anatomical structures have been carefully analyzed. It can be concluded that the ramal implants can be safely placed at a level 3–8 mm above the permanent mandibular first molar in relation to the occlusal plane.

The aim of this study was to assess and evaluate the awareness and knowledge of smile arc and analysis among orthodontists and non-orthodontists by means of conducting a knowledge, attitude and practices survey. A closed questionnaire of 17 questions was prepared in consultation with experts involved in the training of dentists. Based on a pilot study a response count of 130 was determined to achieve a power of 80. The questionnaire was shred through professional chat forums. A reminder post was shared two weeks after the initial post. The survey was closed four weeks after the reminder post and 145 responses were obtained. Most respondents were non-orthodontists and were young practitioners with experience of less than 5 years. Descriptive statistics showed that most respondents are aware of smile analysis and smile arc but most respondents do not use it in practice for diagnosis and treatment planning. Independent t-test showed that orthodontists are more aware of smile arc and smile analysis and use it more often in clinical practice when compared to non-orthodontists. Most participants are aware of the parameters for to be evaluated for smile analysis and smile arc.

The present case report describes the interdisciplinary management of a patient with increased overbite and overjet, Angle’s Class Ⅰ malocclusion, bilateral agenesis of the mandibular central incisors and microdontia of the upper lateral incisors. The 18-year-old female patient had a convex profile, maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and mild spacing in the mandibular anterior region. Therefore, treatment consisted of fixed appliance therapy, followed by replacement of the one lower incisor with an endosseous implant supported prosthesis and aesthetic build-up of the upper lateral incisors. The method of treatment has significantly improved the patient’s facial and dental aesthetics and provided a good functional occlusion, despite the absence of a mandibular incisor.

No abstract

It is of interest to establish the cephalometric correlation of angular data between frankfort horizontal and the sella-nasion line in different sagittal skeletal bases. Beta angle was used to divide the sample based on their sagittal skeletal base relationship. The FH-SN angle was measured for each group. The data were tabulated into IBM SPSS software. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test was done to test the normal distribution of the data. One-way ANOVA analysis was done to test the difference of the FH-SN angle among the groups. Independent samples t-Test was done to test for gender dimorphism. The mean FH-SN angle of the sample was 6.33°3.35°. The results of the One-Way ANOVA and independent samples t-Test were insignificant. Results show that is no statistically significant difference in FHSN angle between skeletal class I, II and III.The mean FH-SN angle of the sample was 6.33°3.35°. The distribution of the data was normal. The results of the One-Way ANOVA and Independent samples t-Test were insignificant. There was no statistically significant difference in FH-SN angle between skeletal class I, II and III.

This study was designed with the aim to evaluate the effect of curing time on the shear-bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded using light cure Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements (RMGIC). This class of cement when used for luting orthodontic brackets offers certain advantages when compared to the more commonly used resin cements. Intact natural teeth (premolars) extracted for therapeutic purposes as part of orthodontic treatment was sourced for use in this study. The teeth were equally divided into four groups four testing, Group 1 - brackets bonded with RMGIC and cured for 3 seconds, Group 2 - brackets bonded RMGIC and cured for 6 seconds, Group 3 - brackets bonded with RMGIC and cured for 9 seconds and Control group - brackets bonded with composite and cured for 15 seconds. A high intensity LED light source was used to cure the cements. The Shear-Bond strength of the brackets was evaluated using a universal testing machine. One-way ANOVA test and Tukey multiple comparison tests were done to compare the difference of Shear-Bond Strengths among the groups tested. The average Shear Bond Strength among study groups was 7.64±2.86 MPa. The ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparison tests could not identify a statistically significant difference in Shear-Bond Strengths among the groups. Curing time does not appear to have a statistically significant effect on the Shear Bond Strength of orthodontic brackets bonded using Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements..

Aim and Objectives The aim of this review is to systematically evaluate and assess the available evidence on arch dimensional changes in the mandible following expansion using Schwarz Appliance in growing patients. Materials and Methods The protocol for the review was registered with the PROSPERO database. A systematic search was done on the following scientific databases PubMed, Cochrane Central, LILACS and Google Scholar to identify articles of relevance published until April 2021. Articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included in the review. The review was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines. MINORS tool was used to evaluate the Risk of Bias and quality of evidence of the included studies. Results 243 trials were identified after implementing the search strategy. After eliminating duplicates 196 trials remained. After screening the titles and abstracts for the eligibility criteria, 190 trials were eliminated from further review. Full text was sought for the remaining six articles and one study was eliminated after review of the full text. Four the included studies showed low Risk of Bias in their methodologies and one study showed a low risk of Bias in its methodology. Qualitative analysis was performed on the remaining five trials. The studies significant increase in the Intermolar, intercanine, interpremolar and arch perimeter and also observed significant up righting of the permanent mandibular first molar. Conclusion Arch dimensional changes in the mandible of growing patients after expansion using Schwarz Appliance are dento-alveolar in nature. No skeletal Expansion is seen.