The Angle orthodontist最新文献

Objectives: To determine the optimal settings for reconstructing the buccal surfaces of different tooth types using the virtual bracket removal (VBR) technique.

Materials and methods: Ten postbonded digital dentitions (with their original prebonded dentitions) were enrolled. The VBR protocol was carried out under five settings from three commonly used computer-aided design (CAD) systems: OrthoAnalyzer (O); Meshmixer (M); and curvature (G2), tangent (G1), and flat (G0) from Geomagic Studio. The root mean squares (RMSs) between the reconstructed and prebonded dentitions were calculated for each tooth and compared with the clinically acceptable limit (CAL) of 0.10 mm.

Results: The overall prevalences of RMSs below the CAL were 66.80%, 70.08%, 62.30%, 94.83%, and 56.15% under O, M, G2, G1, and G0, respectively. For the upper dentition, the mean RMSs were significantly lower than the CAL for all tooth types under G1 and upper incisors and canines under M and G2. For the lower dentition, the mean RMSs were significantly lower than the CAL for all tooth types under G1 and lower incisors and canines under M, G2, and G0 (all P < .05). Additionally, the mean RMSs of all teeth under G1 were significantly lower than those under the other settings (all P < .001).

Conclusions: The optimal settings varied among different tooth types. G1 performed best for most tooth types compared to the other four settings.

Objectives: To determine whether achieved outcome regarding overjet and overbite matched the predicted outcome following treatment with Invisalign (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif) aligner appliances.

Materials and methods: Data including pretreatment, predicted and achieved overjet, and overbite measurements provided by Align's digital treatment facility, ClinCheck Pro, were evaluated. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum intraclass correlation (ICC) test results were calculated.

Results: From an initial sample of 600, 355 adult patients satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. ICC scores for data input were excellent. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 30.14 (23.33, 39.92) years and most (n = 259; 72.95%) were women. Almost one-third (n = 101; 28.45%) had undergone extraction as part of their treatment. More aligners were prescribed in the initial digital treatment plan for patients (median, 44; IQR: 35, 51.5; minimum, 17; maximum, 92) undergoing extractions as part of their orthodontic treatment than those who were not (median, 24; IQR: 18.25, 32; minimum, 13; maximum, 85) (P < .0001). Planned changes in overjet differed significantly from achieved outcomes (P < .001). Planned increases in overbite resulted in up to more than twice (222.72%) as much increase than predicted. Planned reduction of overbite achieved 8.69% of its predicted reduction in extraction cases.

Conclusions: Achieved overjet and overbite measurements differed significantly from the predicted outcomes at the end of an initial sequence of aligners. Planned increases in overbite resulted in greater overbite correction than predicted, particularly in extraction cases. Planned overbite reduction was challenging, especially in patients with extractions.

Objectives: To compare four first premolar extraction and nonextraction treatment effects on intra-arch width, profile, treatment duration, occlusal outcomes, smile aesthetics and stability.

Materials and methods: An electronic search of the literature to June 2, 2023 was conducted using health science databases, with additional search of gray literature, unpublished material, and hand searching, for studies reporting nonsurgical patients with fixed appliances regarding sixteen sub-outcomes. Data extraction used customized forms, quality assessed with ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions) and Cochrane RoB 2 (risk-of-bias) tool. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) assessed certainty of evidence.

Results: Thirty (29 retrospective studies, 1 randomized controlled trial) studies were included. Random-effect meta-analysis (95% CI) demonstrated maxillary (MD: -2.03 mm; [-2.97, -1.09]; P < .0001) and mandibular inter-first molar width decrease (MD: -2.00 mm; [-2.71, -1.30]; P < .00001) with four first premolar extraction; mandibular intercanine width increase (MD: 0.68 mm; [0.36, 0.99]; P < .0001) and shorter treatment duration (MD: 0.36 years; [0.10, 0.62]; P = .007) in the nonextraction group. Narrative synthesis included three and five studies for upper and lower lip-E plane, respectively. For American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System and maxillary/mandibular anterior alignment (Little's irregularity index), each included two studies with inconclusive evidence. There were no eligible studies for UK Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score. Class I subgroup/sensitivity analyses favored the same results. Prediction interval indicated no significant difference for all outcomes.

Conclusions: Four first premolar extraction results in maxillary and mandibular inter-first molar width decrease and retraction of upper/lower lips. Nonextraction treatment results in mandibular intercanine width increase and shorter treatment duration. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding maxillary intercanine width, US PAR score, and posttreatment smile esthetics. Further high-quality focused research is recommended.

Objectives: To assess the scientific evidence related to the role of the mandibular third molars on the late crowding of the lower anterior teeth in patients with or without previous orthodontic treatment. The secondary outcomes included changes in mandibular arch width and arch length.

Materials and methods: The databases PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, and Google Scholar were searched from inception until April 2022. The included papers were studies evaluating the role of mandibular third molars on crowding of mandibular anterior teeth in patients of any age and gender, with mandibular third molars impacted or semi-impacted or erupted. Predetermined and prepiloted data collection forms were used to record the necessary information.

Results: Thirteen observational studies were included in the present systematic review. Most of them were assigned an overall risk of bias of moderate risk while the rest of them were at high risk. Four studies found an association between the presence of mandibular third molar and mandibular incisor crowding. Finally, seven studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Three different meta-analyses were conducted: for patients (a) with or (b) without previous orthodontic treatment and (c) in combination for patients with and without previous orthodontic treatment. According to the pooled results of all three meta-analyses, random effects model yielded a significant benefit for those without third molars compared to those with third molars regarding crowding, mean Little's irregularity index and mean arch length.

Conclusions: Lower third molars may contribute to mandibular crowding and lower arch constriction. Further prospective research of high quality is needed to clarify the impact of third molars on anterior mandibular crowding.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of distalizing maxillary first molars (U6) by temporary anchorage devices (TADs) according to their location (palatal, buccal, and zygomatic), their number, and appliance design.

Materials and methods: An electronic search of maxillary molar distalization with TADs was done through April 2023. After study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment, meta-analyses were performed for the extent of distalization, distal tipping, and vertical movement of U6 using the generic inverse variance and random-effects model. The significance level was set at 0.05.

Results: Forty studies met the inclusion criteria: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 13 prospective studies, and 23 retrospective studies (total of 1182 patients). Distalization of the U6 was not significantly greater (P = .64) by palatal (3.74 mm) and zygomatic (3.68 mm) than by buccal (3.23 mm) TADs. Distal tipping was significantly higher (P < .001) in nonrigid (9.84°) than in rigid (1.97°) appliances. Vertical movement was mostly intrusive and higher but not significantly different (P = .28) in zygomatic anchorage (-1.16 mm).

Conclusions: Distalization of U6 with TADs can be an effective and stable treatment procedure, especially when performed with rigid palatal appliances. However, further RCTs or prospective cohort studies are strongly recommended to provide more clinical evidence.