Background and Objectives: Retention is important stage of orthodontic treatment that preserves teeth in new positions. To make occlusion stable after orthodontic treatment, retention protocol is recommended. There is great variation among orthodontists regarding type, duration and strategies of retention following orthodontic treatment. Therefore, the aim of current survey was to identify the common retention procedures and to evaluate the results with similar studies conducted in different countries. Patients and methods: thirty five questionnaires in total with 20 questions were sent to all members of the Iraqi Orthodontic Society living in the Kurdistan region-Iraq. 35 orthodontists were responded to questionnaires. The questionnaire represents specific information about socio-demographic status of the respondents, selection of a retention system, details of commonly used retainers, the duration of the retention period, supervision of the retainers, instructions for patients. After receiving of the completed 35 questionnaires, the data were statistically analyzed. Results: Bonded retainer was the most common retainer for both maxillary (48.57%) and mandibular (65.71%) arches. 28.54% of the orthodontist ended bonded retention within 2 years, while 37% of orthodontists continued retention for more than 2 years. 77.14 % of participants advised to wear the removable appliances on a full-time basis during the first 6 months. Conclusion: All Orthodontists prescribe retention system. Fixed lingual retainer are the most common retainer among orthodontists. This is comparable to the most common prescribed type of retainers in other countries, but there are differences about duration and follow-up protocols.
Objective: To assess dental arch dimensions (width, depth) in mixed dentition in a sample of Kurdish orthodontic patients. Methods: A sample of 58 dental casts (28 class I, 30 class II division 1 malocclusions) from 8 years and two months to 10 years and nine months were collected. Measurement of arch dimensions was taken, including width and depth. Differences between males and females and between class I and class II division 2 malocclusion were tested using independent t-test. Results: With gender pooled, class I group has larger UC, UE, U6, LE, L6 width than class II group, whereas class II group has larger LC width than class I group with no significant difference. The class II group has larger arch depth for maxillary measurements than the class I group, with no significant difference. While the class I group has larger arch depth for mandibular measurements than the class II group, with no significant difference except for LC. In gender dimorphism, class I group, all arch width measurements, females have a larger width than males except L6; all differences were no significant. While in all arch depth measurements, males have larger depth than females. In the class II group, all measurements of width and depth were larger in males than females, the difference in UE and U6 were significant. Conclusions: Class I malocclusion has larger width and depth than class II division 1 malocclusion, except in the maxillary depth of class II division 1 malocclusion. Males had larger arch dimensions than females.
Objective: Dental anomalies are abnormal morphological development of dentition during various periods of tooth development and have an important role in the development of various kinds of malocclusions. If dental anomalies not diagnosed, they can make dental and orthodontic treatment more difficult. So, orthodontists and the general dental practitioner must investigate patients carefully. The objective of the current study was to determine the prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in a sample of orthodontic patients in Erbil city using orthopantomogram.` Methods: Four hundred fifty-eight orthopantomograms of orthodontic patients with age of 16-40 years evaluated to determine the prevalence and distribution of the hypodontia, impaction, microdontia, and supernumerary tooth. Results: 15.06% orthodontic patients: 21 males and 48 females had at least one dental anomaly. Impaction and hypodontia were the most common dental anomalies with no significant difference between genders. Maxillary canines were more commonly impacted tooth, whereas maxillary lateral incisors were the most common tooth agenesis among genders. Conclusions: Impaction was the most prevalent dental anomaly, and maxillary canines were the most involved teeth and are in agreement with many studies among various populations. The most frequently missing teeth were the maxillary lateral incisors. However, mandibular 2nd premolar was the most common hypodontia in some studies.
Background and objectives: Removable orthodontic appliances are useful in a variety of situations but present the inherent disadvantage of the treatment being in the control of the patient. Evaluation of orthodontic treatment result, aids to establish aims and reach a measurable finish for completed treatment for patients. In order to study the quality of treatment, it is advisable to assess the results of treatments. To achieve this aim, an accepted index is required to assess the occlusion and the positions of teeth in the arch. Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) is a typical mean to evaluate the result of orthodontic treatments. The aim of the study is to assess the results of orthodontic treatments by removable appliances on the basis of PAR index. Patients and methods: Treatment of patients has been done by dental students by using removable orthodontic appliances, therefore the dental study casts of 64 consecutively completed removable appliance cases were examined before and after orthodontic treatment using the PAR index. Results: On the basis of weighted PAR criteria, the difference between scores before and after treatment was significant for anterior maxillary segment (P<0.001), overjet (P<0.001), overbite (P<0.001), midline (P<0.001), buccal occlusion in transverse and anteroposterior direction (P<0.01). On the other hand, a non-significant difference was recorded regarding buccal occlusion in vertical sections (P=0.99). Conclusion: The average of PAR index reduction was higher in girls than in boys. The proper selection of cases for Phase I orthodontic treatment is critical to the success of the treatment. Removable orthodontic appliances are useful for correction of minor abnormalities, especially in anterior region.
Background: returning surface of the enamel to its pre-orthodontic state after debonding of brackets without any damage to the texture of enamel is a clinical contest. removal of Residual adhesive using correct and suitable tools and methods ensures a smooth surface and healthy plaque-free environment. Therefore; the study aims to determine the safest method to finish enamel surface after bracket debonding using three different methods.Method: Thirty premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were selected for this study. The samples were coded 1-30 randomly and surface roughness was measured before bracket placement using profilometer. Then bracket bonded in the middle third of the buccal surface of the premolars and then debonded using debonding plier. The sample was divided into three groups, 10 for each group (group 1: 18-flute tungsten carbide bur, group 2: 12-flute tungsten carbide bur, group 3: adhesive removing plier). Then the second roughness measurement was recorded.Result: It is found that debonding with adhesive removing plier was the least efficient method followed by 12-fluted tungsten carbide bur, so the best clean-up method in this study achieved is by using 18-fluted tungsten carbide bur. Conclusion:The 18-fluted flame-shaped tungsten carbide bur at high speed for orthodontic adhesive removal demonstrated more favorable results in our hands, as it resulted in the smoothest enamel surface and could reasonably be used as a standard by which future other burs or other procedures are compared.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.