Deep bite is one of the most common malocclusion seen in children as well as adults and is most difficult to treat successfully. Unfavorable sequel of this malocclusion predisposes a patient to periodontal involvement, functional problems, and temporomandibular joint disturbance. Deep bite anteriorly could be caused by supraeruption of upper and/or lower incisors or infraeruption of posterior teeth. Methods of deep bite correction are extrusion of posterior teeth, intrusion of anterior teeth, combination of both, proclination of incisors and orthognathic surgical modality. This article will describe various appliances, their indication and contraindication and also with the biomechanics involved.

Skeletal Class II malocclusion is attributed to maxillary prognathism, mandibular retrognathism or combination of both. In adolescent cases, the treatment includes growth modulation with headgear or myofunctional appliances. However in adults, optimum esthetic and functional efficacy can be achieved by orthodontic-surgical combination.This case report describes a 21 years old post-pubertal male with severe skeletal Class II discrepancy with normal maxilla and retrognathic mandible. The case was treated with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) with mandibular advancement approach. Straight profile, pleasing esthetics, bilateral Class I molar and canine relationship, normal overjet and overbite were achieved because of a combined ortho-surgical approach.

Cephalometry is one of the important diagnostic tools for assessment of jaw relationship. Sagittal jaw relationship is of utmost concern to the patients and orthodontist. Many linear and angular parameters are used for measurement of sagittal jaw discrepancies. This article reviews various AP cephalometric parameters

This systematic review aims to assess skeletal, dental and soft tissue treatment effects of the conventional Twin-block appliance compared to control in Class II malocclusion till date. The electronic databases of Medline, PubMed and Cochrane library were systematically searched until September 2019. The human studies that had used the conventional Twin block appliance with a control group evaluated by a Lateral Cephalogram were included. A total of 321 articles were examined. 10 articles were selected. Majority studies reported a significant improvement in the mandible and in the vertical height, maxillary restrictive effect was less consistently reported. A restrictive maxillary molar effect and an advancement in the mandibular molar has been suggested. Retroclination of the maxillary incisors and proclination of mandibular incisor inclination has been reported. There is some evidence to suggest a retrusive upper lip effect and a protrusive lower lip effect. Increase in Nasolabial angle and some decrease in the mentolabial sulcus to be expected. In conclusion the conventional Twin Block appliance have shown desirable skeletal, dental and soft tissue effects. However certain inevitable side effects are also seen mainly its effect on lower anterior proclination.

No abstract

For centuries, many different techniques have been used in an attempt to modify bone growth, both in terms of amount & the direction. Orthodontists, for example, use intraoral & extraoral appliance to restrict growth of the maxilla in hopes of accentuating mandibular sagittal growth. There are several new approaches that have been developed to correct severe anterioposterior, transverse & vertical deformities of the craniofacial skeleton. One of these alternative approaches is the method of gradual bone distraction known as "Distraction Osteogenesis". (DO)It is a biological process of new bone formation between the surfaces of osteotomized bone segments that are gradually separated by incremental traction. "Distraction is not a technique in search of applications. Its use should be focused on conditions that are not well addressed by conventional techniques and where distraction gives a truly superior result."

Introduction: Orthodontic appliances are considered to be biocompatible although adverse effects attributed to release of nickel ion which are free radicals in oral cavity. These free radical produce damages both in cellular and extracellular components phospholipid membrane, proteins, mitochondrial and nuclear DNA leading to Oxidative stress which is normally counter balanced by the action antioxidant mechanisms. However in higher concentrations of free radicals resulting in cellular death and apoptosis Orthodontic appliances such as brackets, wire, resins has considered as potential allergen leading to release of free radicals. The study was conducted to determine and compare the role of oxidative stress and role of antioxidants in saliva of patients undergoing fixed orthodontic appliances therapy at different time intervals. Materials & Method: A double-blinded, parallel, randomized clinical study was designed consisting of 40 healthy participants, aged 15-30yrs. The samples were divided into two groups Group A without antioxidants supplements and Group B with antioxidants supplements. Salivary MDA levels and gingival health index was recorded at different time intervals from each group. Salivary Lipid peroxidation (Malondialdehyde) level was estimated using Thiobarbituric acid (TBA) method and gingival status was investigated using Silness & Loe gingival index. Intragroup and intergroup comparison was statistically analyzed using student’s paired T test. Result: Increased salivary MDA levels and mild to moderate amount of gingivitis is seen in both groups. This is more pronounced after 24 hours of appliance placement. Improvement in salivary MDA levels and gingival health status is observed during the course of treatment, In Group B the salivary MDA levels and gingival health index score reached below their pretreatment values. However even after a span of 3 months the levels remained higher to their base values in Group A. Conclusion: Improvement in salivary MDA levels and gingival health status is observed following antioxidant therapy during course of treatment, indicating combating nature of antioxidant supplements in orthodontic patients.

No abstract