Class II correction was mainly dentoalveolar in both treatment groups. Use of miniscrews with Forsus did not enhance mandibular forward growth nor prevent labial tipping of the mandibular incisors.

OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the root lengths of upper incisors as an indication of the degree of orthodontically-induced apical root resorption following treatment with Smart Track® aligners and compare it with two different fixed orthodontic appliances – regular and Damon brackets – using cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT).MATERIALS AND METHODS:The sample comprised 33 patients with class I malocclusion and 4–6 mm crowding divided in 3 groups; Group I: 11 patients treated with Smart Track® aligners, group II: 11 patients treated with Damon brackets, and group III: 11 patients with regular brackets. Maxillary incisors teeth lengths were assessed using Dolphin imaging software before and after treatment. All data were analyzed using analysis of variance and t-test.RESULTS:All groups showed statistically significant root resorption, 0–1.4 mm for clear aligners, 0.1–2.3 mm for Damon, and 0–2.5 mm for regular brackets group. However, cases treated with fixed appliance in general showed significantly higher resorption than those treated with Smart Track® aligners (P < 0.05).CONCLUSION:Orthodontically-induced root resorption, as evaluated by root length, is an inevitable drawback with different orthodontic techniques. However, the use of Smart Track® aligners showed less root resorption relative to regular fixed appliances.

The use of miniscrew-anchored inverted FRD could effectively increase maxillary forward growth, but it did not prevent mesial movement of the maxillary dentition. Significant lower incisor retroclination was observed. Significant esthetic improvement of the facial profile was achieved primarily because of lower lip retrusion and upper lip protrusion.

No abstract

In the present study, Thirty-six Class patients II (A condition in which the upper jaw is larger than the lower jaw) were randomly selected and assigned to one of two groups based on their maturation stage: the pre-pubertal group (18 patients, mean age 9.15 ± 1.5 years) and post-pubertal group (18 patients, mean age 16.3 ± 1.0 years). All patients were treated with a metallic splint-supported Herbst IV appliance(An appliance that acts like artificial joint working between the upper and power jaws that keeps the lower jaw in a forward position, thus improving the Class II condition ). Pretreatment (T1) and post-Herbst IV treatment (T2) scans were obtained for both groups. Dental and skeletal measurements were made on the scans and statistically analyzed using paired and independent t-tests. The study hypothesis was that; the dentoskeletal changes in Class II malocclusion treatment using Herbst appliance in the Pre-pubertal is more than the Post-pubertal growth stage due to the remaining growth potential for the pre-pubertal patients. The comparison between the two groups revealed statistically significant differences in horizontal skeletal parameters in the lower jaw only, while other readings were similar