Progress in Orthodontics最新文献

Objective: To compare the three-dimensional (3-D) movement of maxillary teeth in response to three common miniscrew anchorage systems in extraction patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.

Materials and methods: The study employed a randomized controlled single-blinded design with three arms. Thirty extraction patients who required maximum anchorage to retract maxillary anterior teeth were included and randomly allocated into three treatment groups: space closure with direct miniscrew anchorage and low crimpable hooks (DL group), indirect miniscrew anchorage and low crimpable hooks (IL group), and direct miniscrew anchorage and high crimpable hooks (DH group). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of all included patients were obtained immediately before (T0) and after (T1) space closure. The outcomes were 3-D positional changes of maxillary central incisor, lateral incisor, canine, second premolar, and first molar. The repeated measures analysis of variance with post hoc LSD test was used to evaluate differences among groups.

Results: A significant intrusion (- 1.34 mm; 95% CI, - 1.60 mm, 1.08 mm) and buccal (- 6.92°; 95% CI, - 8.67°, - 5.13°) and distal (4.90°; 95% CI, 3.75°, 6.04°) inclination of the maxillary first molars were observed in the DL group, compared to the other two groups. The mesial movement (- 0.40 mm; 95% CI, - 0.83 mm, - 0.03 mm) of the maxillary first molars was found in the IL group, while the DL (0.44 mm; 95% CI, 0.15 mm, 0.73 mm) and IL (0.62 mm; 95% CI, 0.28 mm, 0.96 mm) groups exhibited distal movement. In the DH group, the lingual inclination changes of maxillary central incisor (5.04°; 95% CI, 2.82°, 7.26°) were significantly lower, which is indicative of good lingual root torque control of the maxillary anterior teeth.

Conclusion: Three miniscrew anchorage systems produced significantly different 3-D maxillary tooth movement. The maxillary first molars were significantly buccally and distally inclined and intruded in patients using direct miniscrew anchorages with low crimpable hooks. Direct miniscrew anchorages with high crimpable hooks could help to achieve better lingual root torque control of the maxillary incisors. Trial registration The trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR1900026960). Registered 27 October 2019.

Background: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of three aligner cleaners on the composition and mechanical properties of two types of orthodontic aligners.

Materials and methods: The cleaners tested were two alkaline peroxide solutions (Retainer Brite-RB; Retainer Cleaner-RC) and one peroxide-free (Steraligner-ST) and the aligners Clear Aligner (C, polyester) and Invisalign (I, polyester-urethane). The aligners were immersed in the cleaner solutions as instructed every day (15 min for RB, RC; 5 min for ST) for a two-week period. The acidity of the solutions was tested with a pH meter. The changes in the chemical composition of the aligners were studied by attenuated total-reflection Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (ATR-FTIR), while Instrumented Indentation Testing (IIT) was used for assessment of changes in Martens Hardness (HM), modulus (E_IT), elastic index (n_IT) and relaxation (R_IT).

Results: RB and RC were weakly acidic (pH = 6.3), whereas ST was mildly acidic (pH = 4.8). The ATR-FTIR analysis demonstrated evidence of acidic hydrolysis of C in ST and I in RB. The IIT-derived properties of I were not affected by the cleaners. However, for C a significant change was found in HM (all cleaners), n_IT (all cleaners) and R_IT (RB, ST). Although the chemical changes support a hydrolytic material deterioration, the results of mechanical properties may interfere with the material residual stresses during fabrication.

Conclusions: Caution should be exerted in the selection of aligner cleaners. The mild acidic cleanser was more aggressive to the polyester, whereas an alkaline peroxide to the polyester-urethane aligner.

Background: No systematic review and meta-analysis are present in the literature comparing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in rapid maxillary expansion (RME) versus slow maxillary expansion (SME) in growing patients.

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to compare PROMs in RME versus SME in growing patients.

Materials and methods: Electronic search in PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and OpenGrey was conducted. Only RCTs were included. Inclusion criteria were: growing patients in the mixed dentition or early permanent dentition, mild-to-moderate maxillary transverse deficiency, dental crowding, treatment with fixed expanders for rapid and slow maxillary expansion. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2. GRADE statement was performed. The mean of the differences (MD) and the risk ratio (RR) were used for the aggregation of data. A random effect model was applied.

Results: Two articles with a total of 157 patients were finally included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. One article was at low risk of bias, while one was at risk of bias with some concerns. Pain presence was less, though not statistically significant, in SME patients (RR = 2.02, 95%CI from 0.55 to 7.49, P = 0.29, I² = 95%, 2 studies, GRADE very low). Pain intensity was significantly lower in SME appliance in the first week of treatment (pooled MD = 0.86 favoring SME, 95%CI from 0.47 to 1.26, P < 0.0001, I² = 6%, 2 studies, GRADE moderate). There were no significant differences between the two groups in difficulty in speaking, difficulty in swallowing, hypersalivation, difficulty in hygiene, and patient and parent satisfaction.

Conclusions: Pain intensity was significantly lower in SME compared to RME during the first week of treatment. For the following weeks, there were no differences in pain between the two protocols.

Background: The study aimed to compare external root resorption (ERR) three-dimensionally in subjects treated with tooth-borne (TB) versus bone-borne (BB) rapid maxillary expansion (RME). Forty subjects who received tooth-borne RME (TB group, average age 13.3 years ± 1.10 years) or bone-borne RME (BB group, average age 14.7 ± 1.15 years) were assessed using CBCT imaging before treatment (T0) and after a 6-month retention period (T1). 3D reconstructions of the radicular anatomy of maxillary first molars (M1), first and second premolars (P1 and P2) were generated to calculate volumetric (mean and percentage values) and shape changes (deviation analysis of the radicular models) obtained at each time point. 2D assessment of radicular length changes was also performed for each tooth. Data were statistically analyzed to perform intra-group (different teeth) and inter-group comparisons.

Results: In both groups, all the investigated teeth showed a significant reduction in radicular volume and length (p < 0.05), with the first molars being the teeth most affected by the resorption process (volume and palatal root length). When volumetric radicular changes were calculated as a percentage of the pre-treatment volumes, no differences were found among the investigated teeth (p > 0.05). Based on the deviation analysis from radicular models superimposition, the areas most affected by shape change were the apex and bucco-medial root surface. Overall, the amount of ERR was significantly greater in the TB group (mm³: M1 = 17.03, P1 = 6.42, P2 = 5.26) compared to the BB group (mm³: M1 = 3.11, P1 = 1.04, P2 = 1.24).

Conclusions: Despite the statistical significance, the difference in the amount of ERR of the posterior maxillary dentition between TB-RME and BB-RME remains clinically questionable.

Background: The purpose of the study was to measure the forces delivered by direct-printed aligners (DPA) in the vertical dimension and compare the force profile with traditional thermoformed aligners (TFA) and to investigate the impact of non-engaged surface patterns to the properties of DPA and TFA.

Methods: A force-measuring appliance was fabricated capable of displacing the aligner in 0.10 mm increments and measuring the resultant force. Polyethylene terephthalate glycol (ATMOS 0.030″ American Orthodontics) and TC-85DAC resin (Graphy Inc) were used to create TFA and DPA, respectively. Aligners were temperature-controlled prior to and during testing to simulate the oral environment. The resultant forces from displacements ranging from 0.10 to 0.30 mm were measured.

Results: At intraoral temperatures, DPA demonstrated significantly less force than TFA. TFA demonstrated a substantial statistically significant increase in force with each 0.10 mm increase in vertical displacement. DPA demonstrated a much more consistent force profile across the range of displacements. The effects of surface patterns in both DPA and TFA were generally a decrease in force. Statistical significance of surface patterns was detected for TFA at displacements of 0.30 mm and greater and significant for DPA only at a displacement of 0.10 mm. Surface patterns in both DPA and the TFA did not show any statistical difference when assessing force proprieties.

Conclusions: Forces delivered by aligners in the vertical dimension by DPA are more consistent and of lower magnitude than those of TFA aligners. Surface patterns were not capable of altering the force properties of both DPA and TFA.

Background: To assess the predictability of crowding resolution and the efficacy of different strategies to gain space during clear aligners treatment.

Methods: A total of 10 clinicians were randomly recruited using the Doctor Locator by Align Technology (California). For each clinician, four consecutive patients treated with aligners and manual stripping were selected for a total of 40 subjects. Thus, 80 arches were collected and uploaded on the Orthoanalyzer software for arch measurements. The data were gained on the starting arch form (T0), on the virtual arch developed with digital planning (vT1), and on the arch form achieved at the end of the aligner sequences (T1). The following parameters were scored: Little's Irregularity Index, transversal arch diameters, (intercuspid, interpremolar, and intermolar width), incisor position/arch length, and enamel interproximal reduction (IPR).

Results: For all the measurements, statistically significant differences were found at different stages. The predictability of crowding resolution was very high, ranging from 87% in the upper arch and 81% in the lower one. Among the different strategies to gain space, variations in sagittal incisor position were predictable, with a value of 70% both in the upper and lower arch. Conversely, changes in arch diameters were less reliable varying between 49 and 67% in the lower arch and 59-83% in the upper one. Moreover, IPR was the least accurate procedure, wavering at 49% in the upper arch and 42% in the lower arch.

Conclusions: The predictability of crowding resolution during treatment with aligners was high. However, the virtual arch forms obtained at the end of digital planning (vT1) did not correspond with the arch forms at the end of the aligner sequences (T1). The IPR was the least predictable strategy to gain space, being, perhaps, an operator-dependent procedure.

Background: With advances in digital technology, new types of lingual fixed retainers are being developed. However, there are few studies that quantitatively evaluate the accuracy and stability of lingual fixed retainers. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and stability of two types of computer-aided customized lingual fixed retainers and a conventional lingual fixed retainer.

Methods: A total of 10 maxillary and 10 mandibular duplicated dental models were selected, and then, three types of retainers were fabricated on the canine-to-canine area for each model. To evaluate accuracy, wire clearance at interproximal area (WCI) was measured using superimposition analysis. Initial flatness deformation was also measured for vertical distortion of retainers. Lateral width, anteroposterior length, and flatness deformation were measured at three-time points for stability assessment. Thermocycling was used to induce 6 months of time flow.

Results: The custom-bent group showed significantly higher WCI than the custom-cut and manual groups in the maxillary arch (P = 0.002). The custom-cut group showed significantly less flatness deformation, which was followed by the custom-bent and manual groups in both the maxillary and mandibular arch (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in stability between the three retainer groups during 5100 cycles of thermocycling (corresponding to 6-month period).

Conclusions: Since there was no difference in stability between the three groups, it is recommended to use custom-cut type retainers in light of accuracy. However, accuracy and stability are not the only factors to consider when selecting type of retainers. Because each retainer has advantages and disadvantages, the type of retainers should be decided in consideration of the clinical environment.

Background: Clear aligner (CA) treatment has been gaining popularity, but the biomechanical effects of CAs in bimaxillary dentition have not been thoroughly investigated. Direct and indirect strong anchorages are two common anchorage control methods, but the underlying biomechanical mechanism has not yet been elucidated. This study aimed to investigate the different biomechanical effects of CAs in closing the bimaxillary space under different anchorage controls, further instructing the compensation strategies design and strong anchorage choice in clinical practice.

Methods: Three-dimensional (3D) bimaxillary models of different anchorage controls were created based on cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral scan data. Four first premolars were extracted using 3D modeling software. Finite element analysis was conducted to simulate the space closure process of the CAs.

Results: In the two strong anchorage groups, the bimaxillary dentition presented different movement patterns during the space closure process, and the lower dentition was more vulnerable to elastic force. From the vertical view, direct strong anchorage with elastic force had the advantage of flattening the longitudinal occlusal curve and resisting the roller-coaster effects, whereas indirect strong anchorage could lead to a deep longitudinal occlusal curve. From the sagittal view, indirect strong anchorage with metallic ligaments had a greater instantaneous anchorage protection effect, particularly in the lower dentition, which reduced the mesial movement of the posterior teeth by nearly four times that of the direct anchorage group. In addition, indirect strong anchorage presented better anterior teeth torque/tipping control, while direct strong anchorage could aggravate lingual tipping of the upper central incisors. Due to the differences in anterior-posterior anchorage and arch shape, compared with the upper dentition, anchorage preservation and vertical control effects were amplified in the lower dentition.

Conclusions: The biomechanical effects of CAs differed between the two strong anchorage groups. Due to the differences in dentition morphology, anterior-posterior anchorage, and dental arch shape, CAs present different biomechanical effects in bimaxillary space closure. Orthodontists should consider the corresponding mechanical compensation according to specific anchorage control methods and dentitions.

Background: Uprighting incisors is particularly important with clear aligner therapy as incisor tip determines the mesio-distal space needed in the arch, and consequently the fit of the aligner. The objective of this study was to investigate the accuracy of ClinCheck^® software to predict lower incisor tip by comparing digitally prescribed movements with actual clinical outcomes and to determine whether the presence of a vertically orientated rectangular composite attachment influences the efficacy of incisor tip.

Methodology: This retrospective study included 66 lower incisors from 42 non-extraction adult patients treated using the Invisalign^® appliance. Twenty-one incisors had vertical attachments, while 45 incisors did not have any attachments. Lower incisor tip was measured at T0 (pre-treatment), T1 (predicted post-treatment) and T2 (achieved post-treatment) on digital models using metrology software. The change in position from T0 to T1 and T0 to T2 was measured from the estimated centre of resistance (C_Res) of each tooth. The estimated centre of rotation was plotted relative to the C_Res to describe the type of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) predicted and achieved.

Results: Predicted incisor tip and achieved incisor tip were positively correlated (R² = 0.55; p < 0.001). For every degree of tip planned 0.4 degrees of tip was achieved. The presence of an attachment resulted in 1.2 degrees greater tip (F = 3.7; p = 0.062) and 0.5 mm greater movement of the predicted apex of the tooth (F = 4.3; p = 0.042) compared with the no attachment group. The type of OTM achieved differed from the type predicted. Sixty-seven percent of incisors investigated were predicted to move by root movement, while 46% achieved this type of movement.

Conclusions: The amount of lower incisor tip achieved was on average substantially less than the ClinCheck^® displayed. Vertically orientated rectangular attachments are recommended where large root movement is planned, and their presence slightly improves apex movement.

Background: This study aimed to three-dimensionally evaluate the qualitative and quantitative maxillary basal, dentoalveolar, and dental dimensions in patients with unilateral or bilateral maxillary impacted canines relative to their normal peers.

Materials and methods: This is a retrospective comparative study. Cone-beam computed tomography images of one hundred and fifty adult patients were divided into three equal groups: unilateral, bilateral, and control groups. Each had 50 patients that were three-dimensionally analysed. The quantitative measurements involved three basal (molar basal width, premolar basal width, and arch depth), seven dentoalveolar (molar alveolar width, premolar alveolar width, inter-molar width, inter-premolar width, inter-canine width, arch length, and arch perimeter), and two dental (canine length and width) measurements. The qualitative measurements included four bone density areas (buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal) around the maxillary impacted canines.

Result: Differences between the three groups were statistically different for the quantitative measurements involving the two basal variables (molar basal width and premolar basal width) and all measured dentoalveolar variables; these were smaller in the unilateral and bilateral groups compared with the control group (p < 0.001). Unilateral and bilateral impacted canine groups showed significantly wider and shorter canines than the control group (p < 0.001). The qualitative measurements (the four bone density areas) around unilateral and bilateral impacted canine groups showed significantly greater density than the control group (p < 0.001). There was no significant qualitative or quantitative difference between the unilateral and bilateral impacted canines. The three groups had no significant variations in terms of arch depth.

Conclusion: Maxillary unilateral and bilateral canine impactions are associated with reduced basal and dentoalveolar dimensions as well as wider and shorter maxillary canines compared to normal peers. The quality of bone around unilateral and bilateral impacted maxillary canines is higher than in non-impacted cases. Unilateral and bilateral canine impactions have quite similar qualitative and quantitative parameters.