No abstract

PurposeIn orthodontics, it is essential to determine the craniofacial skeleton pattern (class I, II, III) for planning treatment. Sella turcica bridging that is seen on lateral cephalometric radiographs is considered as a normal finding. This study aimed to compare sella turcica bridging and its dimensions in patients with various craniofacial patterns.Material and methodsA total of 105 lateral cephalometric radiographs (53 men and 52 women), aged 14–26 years, were randomly and equally assigned to three groups of class I, II, and III, respectively. The length, diameter, and depth of the sella turcica as well as sella turcica bridging were determined on radiographs. The chi-squared test was used for assessing the relationship between sella turcica bridging and craniofacial skeleton classification. ANOVA was used for assessing the relationship between the dimensions of the sella turcica and craniofacial skeleton classification. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used for assessing the relationship between age and the dimensions of the sella turcica.ResultsThe sella turcica had a normal shape in 64.76% of patients, whereas 35.33% of patients had sella turcica bridging. In total, 11.42% of patients belonged to class I, 34.28% to class II, and 66.62% to class III. The diameter of the sella turcica had a significant relationship with age; the diameter of the sella turcica increased with age (p < 0.001).ConclusionsThere is a significant relationship between craniofacial skeleton patterns and sella turcica bridging, i.e., the incidence of sella turcica bridging is higher in class III patients. The sella turcica had a greater diameter in older patients.

No abstract

BackgroundFixed orthodontic retainers have numerous advantages, but it is not known whether they can exert pathological forces on supporting tissues around the splinted teeth. The purpose of this study was to investigate how the inclination of the lower anterior teeth can affect dental displacement and also change the direction of occlusal loads exerted to dental and its supporting tissues.MethodsFour three-dimensional finite element models of the anterior part of the mandible were designed. All the models contained the incisors and canines, their periodontal ligament layers (PDLs), the supporting bone (both spongy and cortical), and a pentaflex splinting wire placed in the lingual side of the teeth. Teeth inclination was considered to be 80° (model 1), 90° (model 2), 100° (model 3), and 110° (model 4) to the horizontal plane. The lower incisors were loaded with a 187-N vertical force. Their displacement patterns and the stress in their PDLs were evaluated.ResultsIn incisors with 80° of inclination, less than a 0.1-mm lingual displacement was seen on the incisal edge and a similar distance of displacement towards the labial was seen on their root apices. However, in models with 90°–110° of inclination, the incisal edge displaced labially between about 0.01 and 0.45 mm, while root apices displaced lingually instead. By increasing the angle of the teeth, the strain in the periodontal ligament increased from about 37 to 58 mJ. The von Mises stresses around the cervical and apical areas differed for each tooth and each model, without a similar pattern. Increasing the angle of the teeth resulted in much higher cervical stresses in the incisors, but not in the canines. In the lateral incisor, cervical stress increased until 100° of inclination but reduced to about half by increasing the angle to 110°. Apical stress increased rather consistently in the incisor and lateral incisors, by increasing the inclination. However, in the canines, apical stress reduced to about half, from the first to fourth models.ConclusionsIncreasing the labial inclination can mostly harm the central incisors, followed by the lateral incisors. This finding warns against long durations of splinting in patients with higher and/or patients with reduced labial bone thickness.

No abstract

No abstract

Background. Despite the importance of identifying proper novel porcelain preparation techniques to improve bonding of orthodontic brackets to porcelain surfaces, and despite the highly controversial results on this subject, no systematic review or meta-analysis exists in this regard. Objective. To comparatively summarize the effects of all the available porcelain surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of orthodontic brackets (metal, ceramic, polycarbonate) bonded to feldspathic porcelain restorations. Search Methods. A search was conducted for articles published between January 1990 and February 2021 in PubMed, MeSH, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and reference lists. Eligibility Criteria. English-language articles comparing SBS of feldspathic porcelain’s surface preparation methods for metal/ceramic/polycarbonate orthodontic brackets were included. Articles comparing silanes/bonding agents/primers without assessing roughening techniques were excluded. Data Analysis. Studies were summarized and risk of bias assessed. Each treatment’s SBS was compared with the 6 and 10 MPa recommended thresholds. Studies including comparator (HF [hydrofluoric acid] + silane + bonding) were candidates for meta-analysis. ARI scores were dichotomized. Fixed- and random-effects models were used and forest plots drawn. Egger regressions and/or funnel plots were used to assess publication biases. Results. Thirty-two studies were included (140 groups of SBS, 82 groups of ARI). Bond strengths of 21 studies were meta-analyzed (64 comparisons in 14 meta-analyses). ARIs of 12 articles were meta-analyzed (28 comparisons in 8 meta-analyses). Certain protocols provided bond strengths poorer than HF + silane + bonding: “abrasion + bonding, diamond bur + bonding, HF + bonding, Nd:YAG laser (1 W) + silane + bonding, CO2 laser (2 W/2 Hz) + silane + bonding, and phosphoric acid + silane + bonding.” Abrasion + HF + silane + bonding might act almost better than HF + silane + bonding. Abrasion + silane + bonding yields controversial results, being slightly (marginally significantly) better than HF + silane + bonding. Some protocols had controversial results with their overall effects being close to HF + silane + bonding: “Cojet + silane + bonding, diamond bur + silane + bonding, Er:YAG laser (1.6 W/20 Hz) + silane + bonding.” Few methods provided bond strengths similar to HF + silane + bonding without much controversy: “Nd:YAG laser (2 W) + silane + bonding” and “phosphoric acid + silane + bonding” (in ceramic brackets). ARIs were either similar to HF + silane + bonding or relatively skewed towards the “no resin on porcelain” end. The risk of bias was rather low. Limitations. All the found studies were in vitro and thus not easily translatable to clinical conditions. Many metasamples were small. Conclusions. The preparation methods HF + silane + bonding, abrasion + HF + silane + bonding, Nd:YAG (2 W) + silane + bonding, and phosphoric acid + silane + bonding (in ceramic brackets) might provide stronger bonds.

No abstract