Aim: The study aimed to evaluate to which extent self-reported symptomatology, age, and sex are predictors of titanium and nickel allergic sensitization in patients in treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances. Methods: The study analyzed 228 subjects aged 11-45 years (median 18, interquartile range 16-22); 68% of them were females, and 52% were adolescents. The allergic sensitization testing included epicutaneous patch test to titanium, titanium dioxide, titanium oxalate, titanium nitride, and nickel sulfate. The questionnaire on symptoms potentially linked to titanium and nickel sensitization was used. Results: Prevalence of the allergic sensitization to titanium in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment was 4% (2% only to titanium without nickel) while to nickel 14% (12% nickel without titanium). Hypersensitivity to both metals at the same time was present in 2% of subjects. Sensitization to nickel was more common in females than in males (17 vs. 8%) and much more common in adults than in adolescents with small effect size (20 vs. 8%; p = 0.013). Sensitization to titanium was more common in females than in males (6 vs. 1%) with no difference in age. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that adult age increases the odds for being sensitized to nickel for 2.4 × (95% CI 1.1-5.6; p = 0.044) while watery eyes for 3.7 × (95% CI 1.2-11.1; p = 0.022). None of the symptoms were significant predictors of titanium sensitization. Conclusion: Allergic sensitization to titanium and nickel are not very frequent in orthodontic patients, and selfreported symptomatology is a weak predictor of those sensitizations.

Objectives The study explored whether television commercials change the perception of one's own dentofacial attractiveness and to identify if it is influenced by personality traits. Materials and methods The sample included 83 participants, aged 19-27 years. The experimental group (N=42) watched commercials portraying famous young individuals with high smile esthetics, bright teeth and no visible malocclusions, while the control group (N=41) watched neutral commercials (without people or visible teeth). The perception of subjects` own orofacial esthetics and its psychosocial effects were assessed a month before the exposure and immediately after it. The subjects` malocclusion severity and personality characteristics (extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, intellect, self-esteem and perfectionism) were assessed. Results In their second report, respondents were inclined to report less psychosocial impacts with small differences (ranging from 0-3 scalar points on average) and less significant in the active group compared to neutral group (2 out of 7 vs. 5 out of 7 aspects). Types of visual stimuli were a significant predictor only of changes pertaining to psychological impact of dental esthetics (p=0.045; r=0.221). The intellect moderated perception of smile esthetics, after having been exposed to commercials, accentuated beautiful smiles as a suppressor (ΔR 2 =0.076; p=0.005; total model R 2 =0.347; p=0.033). In subjects with higher cognitive abilities, an increase in the self-perceived malocclusion level induced a smaller decrease in psychological impact of dental esthetics as compared to those with lower intellect. Conclusion Psychosocial influences of malocclusion are not stable and tend to decrease during time. However, the exposure to a high smile esthetic of other individuals can inhibit that process in persons with more severe malocclusion and higher cognitive abilities.

Objective: To assess properties of Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire in Croatian cultural context by analyzing: how dentofacial deformity influences quality of life (QoL), what aspects of QoL are patients’ primary motives to undergo orthognathic surgery, what changes after surgery and how personality traits influence QoL. Materials and Methods: A total of 472 subjects (65% females) aged 12 to 45 years (median 20) were included. Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire, Oral Health Impact Profile, Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire, Orofacial Aesthetics Scale, Self-Esteem Scale, Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, and Big Five Inventory were used. The subjects’ dentofacial deformity and malocclusion severity was assessed by Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need, and Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need. Results: Social aspect is mostly influenced by dentofacial deformity (P < 0.05). Impaired oral function was the primary motive to undergo orthognathic surgery (P < 0.001). Social aspect and aesthetic concern mostly decreased after the surgery (P < 0.001). Self-esteem was the strongest predictor of the orthognathic QoL, the increase of self-esteem decreases the QoL impairment. Neuroticism and extraversion were in the background of problems in social interactions and facial aesthetic concerns, while perfectionism affected social contacts (r = 0.284–0.410; P < 0.001). Only awareness of deformity did not correlate to any of the other instruments. Conclusion: Impaired oral function seems to be the most powerful motive for orthognathic surgery, but social aspects and facial aesthetic concern are more accurate indicators of conditions and changes. Self-esteem is the strongest personality trait influencing orthognathic QoL.

(1) Background: Self-adhesive systems have been proposed for the orthodontic bonding with the intention to reduce the traditional three-component system. (2) Methods: The sample consisted of 32 extracted intact permanent premolars randomly divided into two groups (n = 16). In Group I the metal brackets were bonded with Transbond XT Primer and Transbond XT Paste. In Group II the metal brackets were bonded with GC Ortho connect. The resin was polymerized for 20 s from two directions (mesial and occlusal) using a Bluephase light-curing unit. The shear bond strength (SBS) was measured using a universal testing machine. Immediately after SBS testing, Raman microspectrometry was performed for each sample to calculate the degree of conversion (DC). (3) Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the SBS between the two groups. A significantly higher DC (p < 0.001) value was recorded in Group II, in which the brackets were bonded with GC. Very weak or no correlation (0.01) was recorded between SBS and DC in Group I and moderate positive correlation was recorded in Group II (0.33). (4) Conclusions: No difference was found in SBS between the conventional and two-step systems used in orthodontics. The two-step system demonstrated higher DC compared to the conventional system. There is a very weak or moderate correlation between DC and SBS.

Objectives To determine factors that could predict Class II/1 malocclusion patient compliance during functional treatment. Materials and Methods The sample consisted of 77 subjects (aged 11–13 years; 47% girls) presenting with Class II/1 malocclusion. Inclusion criteria were distal molar relationship, overjet greater than 5 mm, and confirmed pubertal growth spurt. Removable functional appliances (62% Twin Block [TB], 38% Sander Bite Jumping [BJ]) with built-in maxillary expansion screws were used. Follow-up period was 1 year. Patients and parents independently filled out the Child Perception Questionnaire, Parental/Caregiver Perception Questionnaire, and Family Impact Scale to assess emotional and social well-being, oral symptoms, functional limitations, parental emotions, family activities, conflicts, and financial burden as possible predictors of compliance during treatment. Sex, overjet, and appliance type were also analyzed. Results There were more noncompliant than compliant patients (55% vs 45%). Parental perception of altered emotional well-being of their children was the strongest predictor, increasing compliance odds 3.4 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2–9.4; P = .017). Patients were 3.2 times (95% CI, 1.1–9.3; P = .033) more likely to cooperate with TB compared with BJ appliance. OJ ≥ 8 mm increased compliance odds 3.1 times (95% CI, 1.0–9.4; P = .044). Conclusions Parental perception of child's emotional well-being alteration, severity of malocclusion, and type of appliance are major predictors of compliance. Psychosocial issues and oral function limitations reported by children and family impact are of negligible influence.