This unique coating could be implemented into practice for safer and faster treatment to the benefit of both patient and clinician.

Background. Any decrease in friction between orthodontic wire and bracket can accelerate tooth movement in the sliding technique and result in better control of anchorage. This study was carried out to evaluate frictional forces by coating orthodontic wires and porcelain brackets with zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO).Methods. In this in vitro study, we evaluated a combination of 120 samples of 0.019×0.025 stainless steel (SS) orthodonticwires and 22 mil system edgewise porcelain brackets with and without spherical zinc oxide nanoparticles. Spherical ZnOnanoparticles were deposited on wires and brackets by immersing them in ethanol solution and SEM (scanning electronmicroscope) evaluation confirmed the presence of the ZnO coating. The frictional forces were calculated between the wiresand brackets in four groups: group ZZ (coated wire and bracket), group OO (uncoated wire and bracket), group ZO (coatedwire and uncoated bracket) and group OZ (uncoated wire and coated bracket). Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Mann-Whitney andKruskal-Wallis tests were used for data analysis.Results. The frictional force in ZZ (3.07±0.4 N) was the highest (P <0.05), and OZ (2.18±0.5 N) had the lowest amount of friction (P <0.05) among the groups. There was no significant difference in frictional forces between the ZO and OO groups (2.65±0.2 and 2.70±0.2 N, respectively).Conclusion. Coating of porcelain bracket surfaces with ZnO nanoparticles can decrease friction in the sliding technique,and wire coating combined with bracket coating is not recommended due to its effect on friction.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to determine arch width changes during maxillary first premolars extraction and non-extraction treatment in patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion.Material and Methods Dental casts of 91 Class II division 1 patients (36 males and 55 females) were evaluated. The minimum age of the subjects at the beginning of treatment was above 16 years. 48 patients were treated with extraction of the maxillary first premolars and 43 patients were treated without extraction. Pre- and post-treatment maxillary and mandibular inter-canine and inter-molar arch widths were measured.ResultsAt the end of treatment, maxillary and mandibular inter-canine widths of both groups increased significantly. The maxillary inter-molar width decreased in the extraction group and increased in the non-extraction group. The mandibular inter-molar width increased significantly in both groups. No significant differences were observed between males and females.ConclusionsThe results of this study indicated that there was a tendency for an increase in arch width during both the extraction and non-extraction treatment except maxillary inter-molar width in the extraction cases. Key words:Dental arch, malocclusion, angle Class II, tooth movement, extraction.

Background. Failure of orthodontic bracket bonds is a common occurrence during orthodontic treatment. Different techniques have been suggested in the literature to remove resin residues from the bracket bases and enamel surfaces to prepare the surfaces again after debonding. This study attempted to compare multiple rebond shear strengths (SBS) of debonded brackets following preparation with sandblasting and CO2 laser.Methods. The brackets were bonded on 30 human and bovine maxillary central incisors using self-curing composite resin. SBS was measured using Hounsfield testing machine. The brackets were rebonded for two other times after composite resin residues on their surfaces were removed, either with air abrasion or CO2 laser. The debonded brackets and enamel surfaces were also evaluated after each debonding procedure under a stereomicroscope in order to determine adhesive remnant index (ARI). SBS of debonded brackets after each step were compared between sandblast and CO2 laser groups.Results. We observed significant differences in SBS values between pre-recycling and first (P = 0.04), second (P = 0.007) and third recycling (P = 0.007) with laser. Recycling with sandblasting resulted in a decrease in SBS after the first and second recycling procedure; however, the SBS increased after the third recycling procedure, with no significant differences.Conclusion. SBS of brackets after recycling with sandblasting and laser beams was not significantly different, and both were at a favorable level. However, repeating the recycling procedure with sandblasting resulted in more favorable SBS compared to laser.

No abstract