New Materials for Orthodontic Interceptive Treatment in Primary to Late Mixed Dentition. A Retrospective Study Using Elastodontic Devices

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the skeletal and dentoalveolar changes obtained after 1 year of treatment with elastodontic appliances (EA) in a retrospective cohort of children reporting early signs of malocclusion. Also, a detailed description of the tested EAs was reported. The study sample included 20 subjects, 8 males and 12 females, with a mean age of 8.4 ± 0.6 years, and a control group consisting of 20 subjects, 9 males and 11 females, with a mean age of 8.1 ± 0.8 years. All subjects in the treated group received the AMCOP second class (SC) (Ortho Protec, Bari, Italy) device. Digital impressions were taken along with a digital bite registration in centric relation before treatment (T0) and after 1 year (T1). Lateral cephalograms were also taken at T0 and T1 and cephalometric analysis was performed to assess the skeletal sagittal changes of the maxilla and the mandible (sella, nasion, A point angle, SNA^; sella, nasion, B point angle, SNB^; and A point–nasion–B point angle, ANB^) as well as the changes of the inter-incisors angle (IIA^). In the treated group, the distribution of subjects according to the presence of crowding and the pattern of malocclusion changed at T1. In the same group, there was an increase of subjects showing no signs of crowding and a class I occlusal relationship, while in the control group, there was a small increase of subjects developing dental crowding and featuring a worse sagittal relationship (class II) compared to pre-treatment condition. A statistically significant reduction of the overjet and overbite was recorded in the treated group between T0 and T1 (p < 0.05); in the control group, a slight increase in the overjet and overbite was detected at T1, being this increment significanct only for the latter parameter. In the tested group, no significant differences were found between SNA^ values detected at T0 and T1 (p > 0.05), instead the SNB^, ANB^, and IIA^ showed a significant increase after 1 year of treatment (p < 0.05). From a clinical perspective, all clinical goals were reached since patients showed remarkable improvements in overjet, overbite, crowding, and the sagittal molar relationship. Within the limitations of the present study, EAs could be effectively used for the interceptive orthodontic in growing patients.

The Efficacy of a New AMCOP® Elastodontic Protocol for Orthodontic Interceptive Treatment: A Case Series and Literature Overview

“…Traditional functional devices consisted of rigid and semi-rigid structures. The evolution of inorganic, elastic and biocompatible materials led to the realization of preformed appliances named elastomeric devices [ 14 ]. The precursor of the elastodontic appliance was the positioner, a single elastomeric device with intercuspation for the lower and upper teeth in normal occlusion.…”

“…The adjunctive ramp on the lingual flange provides to guide the tongue on the palate and is determinant for functional rehabilitation in cases of atypical swelling. The employed materials are a soft silicone elastomer or polymer/elastomer combination to produce light and biological elastic forces without traumatizing the oral mucosa [ 14 ].…”

“…− ELASTO-OSAS ( Figure 1 ) is designed for the treatment of night snoring, sleep apnea. It features a front sliding plane and an accentuated lingual shield to promote the correct positioning of the tongue on the palate [ 14 , 15 ].…”

“…The presence of a lingual ramp and a button for the tongue, in addition, allows the restoration of a correct posture and lingual function. Several devices are available for the different types of malocclusions, distinguished by different colorations and transversal sizes [ 14 , 15 ].…”

Interface between Periodontal Tissues and Dental Materials: Dynamic Changes and Challenges

“…Furthermore, the various biological responses to these materials are determined by the release of their components and whether these components at their released concentrations are toxic, immunogenic, or mutagenic. Its position in the oral cavity partially determines the biocompatibility of a material [24][25][26][27]. Materials that appear biocompatible in contact with the surface of the oral mucosa can cause adverse reactions if they are implanted beneath it (Figure 2).…”