Clinical Oral Investigations最新文献

Objective: This study aimed to compare the effect of bimaxillary first premolar extractions versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment on the vertical skeletal dimension and dentoalveolar structures in Class I malocclusion.

Materials and methods: A prospective clinical trial was conducted involving 50 adult patients with Class I malocclusion, hyperdivergent facial pattern, and moderate crowding (as low as 4.6 to as high as 7.1 mm) in both arches. The sample was divided into two groups: The extraction group, consisting of 25 patients who underwent extraction of bimaxillary first premolars, and the non-extraction group, composed of 25 patients treated without extraction. The vertical skeletal dimensions and dentoalveolar changes in the three orthogonal planes were assessed on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images before and after treatment. Intra- and inter-group comparisons were performed using paired and an independent t-test, respectively.

Results: In the extraction group, the lower anterior facial height (LAFH) significantly increased by 1.35 ± 1.73 mm (P = 0.00), while the mandibular plane angle (SN-MP angle) showed a non-significant decrease. In the non-extraction group, the LAFH significantly increased by 0.8 ± 1.8 mm (P = 0.03), while the SN-MP angle showed a statistically significant decrease of 0.7 ± 0.75 degrees (P = 0.00). No significant difference was found between the two studied groups in all measurements of the skeletal vertical skeletal dimension including LAFH, posterior facial height (PFH), SN-MP angle, and Frankfort mandibular plane angle (FMA).

Conclusions: The vertical skeletal dimension showed no significant difference between extraction and non-extraction orthodontic treatments. The influence of first premolar extractions on the vertical skeletal dimension is often overestimated.

Clinical relevance: The extraction or non-extraction decision in orthodontics is attributed to several factors, in which one of these factors is the impact of treatment on facial divergence of the patient. This study investigates the effect of both treatments and demonstrated the limitations to reduce the vertical skeletal dimension by first premolar extraction. Hence, clinicians need to control the facial divergence by means other than the extraction strategy alone.

Trial registration: The study protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with an identification number: NCT04151875.

Objectives: This study investigated novel mineral-organic cements based on magnesium and organophosphates, originally developed as resorbable bone adhesives. The aim was to evaluate this new class of materials in a dental context, focusing on their suitability as temporary restorative materials in endodontic treatments.

Materials and methods: Two thermally treated trimagnesium phosphate hydrates (Mg₃(PO₄)₂ ∙ xH₂O and Mg₃(PO₄)₂ ∙ 22H₂O (cattiite)) were each combined with two organophosphates (phosphoserine (OPLS) and sodium phytate (Na-IP6)), resulting in four adhesive formulations. These were compared with a commonly used material for temporary restorations (Cavit™) and a reference adhesive (TTCP + OPLS) regarding mechanical strength, sealing ability (methylene blue penetration) on bovine teeth, and structural integrity.

Results: Shear bond strength to dental hard tissues was significantly higher for the new cements compared to Cavit™, particularly for the OPLS + TMP ∙ xH₂O formulation (4.35 ± 0.71 MPa vs. 0.29 ± 0.16 MPa; initially on dentin). pH and temperature during setting remained within clinical limits. TMP ∙ xH₂O + OPLS also showed the favorable sealing behavior, while Cavit™ performed similarly. Porosimetry, SEM and micro-CT supported the favorable profile of this formulation.

Conclusion: The combination of 400 °C sintered TMP ∙ xH₂O and OPLS proved most suitable in terms of handling, stability, and sealing. This system are promising candidates for temporary restorations, particularly in non-retentive cavities.

Clinical relevance: The tested cements may serve as novel resorbable, adhesive alternatives for temporary restorations. Future applications could include pulp capping or perforation repair.

Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative nasal morphological changes between two intraoral alar cinch suture techniques in patients undergoing Le Fort I osteotomy.

Methods: A retrospective longitudinal study was conducted with patients undergoing Le Fort I osteotomy, and two types of alar cinch were evaluated. Patients with a history of nasal procedures or cleft lip surgery were excluded. Group 1 received a cinch that passes through the anterior nasal spine, and Group 2 involves only soft tissues. A descriptive analysis was performed, and the normality of variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The repeated measures ANOVA test was then used to evaluate changes over time between the two groups. When the assumption of sphericity was violated, the Mauchly's test, Greenhouse-Geisser, Huynh-Feldt, and Lower-Bound tests were used to correct for it. Between- and within-subjects effects were analyzed using Type III sums of squares. A significance level of 0.05 was considered.

Results: (N = 60) were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 30). No significant differences were found in demographic or clinical variables at baseline (p > 0.05). A considerable increase in interalar width was seen before and after surgery (p < 0.001), with more significant differences in group 1 (p = 0.004). Nasal projection and nasolabial angle changed between pre- and postoperative periods (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively); however, there was no difference in the type of suture technique used (p = 0.474 and p = 0.647).

Conclusions: Orthognathic surgery produces significant changes in nasal morphology. However, only the interalar width showed differences between sling techniques, with a greater increase in the group using the sling that passes through the anterior nasal spine. These findings indicate that the choice of sling affects control of the nasal base, while projection and the nasolabial angle depend on maxillary movement.

Objective: This letter responds to the recent study article by Shaaban et al. published in Clinical Oral Investigations in 2025 ( https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-06051-0 ), which reported the efficiency of intraoral botulinum-A toxin (BTX-A) injection guided by ultrasound for trigger points (TrPs) in the masseter muscles.

Materials and methods: We discuss the diagnostic protocol adopted in the study, the absence of specific criteria to confirm the presence of TrPs either during palpation or ultrasound evaluation, the paucity of information regarding the identified TrPs and the BTX-A doses associated with them, and the terminological confusion surrounding TrP injections.

Result: The diagnostic approach employed in the study revealed certain inconsistencies. The dearth of data concerning the reported cumulative BTX-A dose impedes the comparability of the findings of this study. Both intra- and extra-oral injections described in the article do not conform to the definition of TrP injections.

Conclusion: The ambiguities in the methodology and terminological inconsistency can lead to significant bias when evaluating the efficacy of TrP injections, and may cause conceptual confusion in the literature.

Clinical relevance: Our critique emphasizes the necessity of transparent studies and standardized terminology to adequately assess the potential role of TrPs in masticatory muscle disorders and the effectiveness of injections targeting these structures. In the absence of such clarity, the reproducibility of therapeutic outcomes remains limited, potentially compromising clinical decision-making and patient care.