Evaluation of palatal bone depth, cortical bone, and mucosa thickness for optimal orthodontic miniscrew placement performed according to the third palatal ruga clinical reference

Objectives This retrospective CBCT study aimed to evaluate the palatal anatomical characteristics using the third palatal ruga as a reliable clinical reference for miniscrew placement. Methods Thirty-six subjects (mean age17.1 y.o. +/- 4.1) were randomly selected and their records (CBCT volume and maxillary digital models) were included. BlueSkyPlan CBCT software viewer (BluSkyBio, V4.7) was used to measure the following outcomes at the level of third palatal ruga, 2 mm anteriorly and 2 mm posteriorly: total bone depth, cortical bone thickness, and mucosa thickness. The outcomes were evaluated on lines perpendicular to the palatal mucosa laying on different sagittal planes: the mid-palatal plane, 2 and 4 mm paramedian planes. Results The maximum mean amount of bone depth was registered 2 mm posteriorly to the third ruga and 4 mm paramedian (9.7 mm). No significant difference was observed between the third ruga insertion site and its corresponding 2 mm posterior site. Cortical bone of palatal vault did not change significantly in anteroposterior direction for all the considered sites. Significant differences were found comparing cortical bone at the suture level with cortical bone 2-mm and 4-mm paramedian at all anteroposterior levels. Palatal mucosa increases its thickness in paramedian insertion sites, and it decreases in posterior insertion sites. Conclusions Both third palatal ruga and 2 mm posteriorly to third ruga (4 mm paramedian) could be the optimal insertion site for palatal miniscrew placement, depending on individual anatomic conditions. The thickness of the cortical palatal bone showed, at 4 mm paramedian, optimal characteristics for miniscrew primary stability. Palatal mucosa thickness values suggest miniscrew neck extension of 2.0-2.5 mm for optimal mucosa adaptation

Effects of Composite Attachments on Orthodontic Clear Aligners Therapy: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to highlight the differences between different clear aligner therapies that differ in the presence of attachments or in attachment configuration. Eight electronic databases were searched up to March 2020. Two authors independently proceeded to study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The analysis of the results was carried out examining six groups of movements (mesio-distal tipping/bodily movement; anterior bucco-lingual tipping/root torque; posterior bucco-lingual tipping/expansion; intrusion; extrusion; rotation). Five clinical trials were selected and all of them showed a medium risk of bias. Literature showed that attachments mostly increase the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with clear aligners, improving anterior root torque, rotation, and mesio-distal (M-D) movement; they are also important to increase posterior anchorage. However, some articles showed contradictory or not statistically significant results. Attachments also seem to improve intrusion, but the evidence about this movement, as well as extrusion, is lacking. No studies evaluated posterior bucco-lingual tipping/expansion. Further clinical trials are strongly suggested to clarify the influence of attachments and their number, size, shape, and position on each orthodontic movement

A Full Diagnostic Process for the Orthodontic Treatment Strategy: A Documented Case Report

The need for extractions in orthodontic treatment has always been a controversial topic. However, to date there is not a specific clinical guideline that can help the clinicians deciding to plan an extractive or a non-extractive orthodontic treatment. In this respect, clinicians must deal with patients’ occlusal, functional, periodontal and aesthetics characteristics before planning an orthodontic treatment including extraction. Considering the absence of specific guidelines, the choice to extract teeth or not is complicated, particularly in borderline cases. In this case report, we present a borderline case of a patient with the skeletal Class III pattern and significant crowding in both arches that could be treated with or without extraction, illustrating the diagnostic and decision-making processes that were conducted for the orthodontic treatment strategy