Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics

WOS: 000439319900004PubMed ID: 30112468The advent of three-dimensional (3D) imaging technology has caused a significant change in the diagnostic approach practiced in dentistry, and in particular, orthodontics. Although conventional imaging methods such as orthopantomography and lateral cephalometric and anteroposterior graphs provide sufficient information in mild to moderate orthodontic anomalies, 3D imaging can be a necessity in severe skeletal anomalies or tooth impactions. Computed tomography (CT) has been frequently used when detailed 3D imaging is necessary despite its relatively high cost, low vertical resolution, and high dose of radiation. In contrast to conventional CT application, the development of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) technology has had important advantages over the conventional method, such as minimization of the radiation dose, image accuracy, rapid scan time, fewer image artifacts, chair-side image display, and real-time analysis. These advantages have provided dental practitioners the opportunity to benefit more frequently from 3D imaging by relatively diminishing radiation dose considerations, financial burden, and availability, in particular. Therefore, the aim of this review is to highlight the current understanding of CBCT practice in orthodontics and to summarize clinically relevant conditions

Root Resorption in Orthodontics

WOS: 000439324700004PubMed ID: 30112483Root resorption has been the subject of many studies, and it can be caused by many factors such as the mechanics used during orthodontic treatment, factors related to the type and magnitude of the force, and other factors related to treatment such as the type of tooth movement and malocclusion. The clinical importance of root resorption is directly related to its detectability. Therefore, orthodontic and biological factors that may cause root resorption were evaluated using various imaging methods in present use. In this review, root resorption in orthodontics was considered from different viewpoints

Is YouTube an adequate patient resource about orthodontic retention? A cross-sectional analysis of content and quality

Introduction: The study aimed to evaluate the content and quality of information offered by YouTube for patients seeking information related to orthodontic retainers. Methods: YouTube was searched using the keyword orthodontic retainers from Google Trends. From the first 120 results, 97 videos were selected to be analyzed. Videos were rated for quality by video information and quality index (VIQI) and the global quality scale (GQS). Videos were classified as low- and high-content groups using a 10-point score considering several retainer-related topics. Mann-Whitney U tests, chi-square tests, and Pearson correlation coefficients were used for statistical evaluations. Results: Most YouTube videos were uploaded by dentists/specialists (62.9%). We classified 12 videos as high content and 85 as low content. Instructions on the use of the orthodontic retainer was the most commonly covered topic (42.3%), followed by the effect on oral hygiene (38.1%), definition (37.1%), procedure of preparing orthodontic retainers (33.0%), and procedure of positioning (30.9%). A lower percentage of videos (6.2%) mentioned soft tissue irritation. The high-content video group had a significantly higher median value of GQS score and VIQI (P<0.001). The correlation between GQS and VIQI was strong (r = 0.698; P < 0.01). Conclusions: The content of YouTube videos for orthodontic retainers could not be considered as an adequate source of information for patients on orthodontic retainers. Most videos included instructions on the use of orthodontic retainers, but fewer videos mentioned the effect on speech performance and soft tissue irritations

Three-dimensional evaluation of morphologic tooth symmetry in various malocclusions

WOS: 000388102700013PubMed ID: 27585774Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the morphologic symmetry of the maxillary and mandibular teeth between the left and right quadrants in 3 dimensions using advanced engineering software. Methods: The total sample comprised 120 dental casts of 60 patients with dental and skeletal Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusions. They were divided into 3 groups of 40 dental casts (20 maxillary, 20 mandibular) belonging to 20 patients. The dental casts were digitized with an intraoral 3-dimensional scanner (TRIOS; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Segmentation and superimposition procedures were carried out using Rapidform software (Inus Technology, Seoul, Korea). Teeth in the left and right quadrants (except for the second molars) in both jaws were superimposed using 3-point registration followed by surface-based registration; 3-Matic software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) was used for deviation analysis. Results: The maximum mean deviations observed in the positive and negative directions were 0.14 +/- 0.10 mm in the maxilla (for the Class I group) and 0.16 +/- 0.09 mm for the Class III group. The differences of the maximum deviation amounts among the malocclusion groups were 0.47 +/- 0.08 mm in negative direction in the maxillary teeth and 0.79 +/- 0.17 mm in the mandibular arch. Conclusions: In the 3 malocclusion groups investigated, morphologic deviations were low and clinically insignificant. Symmetry of tooth morphology did not differ among Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusions

Visual perception of faces with unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate: An Eye-Tracking Study

WOS: 000397052400006PubMed ID: 28102012Objectives: To test the hypotheses that there are differences between orthodontists, individuals with cleft lip and palate (CLP) and laypersons in the visual perception of faces with unilateral (UCLP) and bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), the faces with UCLP and BCLP are visually perceived differently and the hierarchy of visual attention changes when viewing individuals with CLP. Setting and Sample Population: Department of Orthodontics and Experimental Psychology at Ege University, Izmir. Sixty images ( faces with a social smile and at rest) of 30 volunteers (unaffected controls, UCLP, BCLP) were viewed by 80 participants: orthodontists, individuals with CLP and laypersons. Materials and Methods: Eye fixations on four areas of interest were quantified: eyes, nose, upper lip and lower lip-chin. Time to first fixation, fixation before, fixation count and fixation duration parameters were analysed. Results: Orthodontists fixated on the upper-lip area more often than laypersons or individuals with CLP (F-2.144= 8.47, P=. 00,. eta(2) =. 19 in faces at rest). The upper-lip area received more fixations (F2.144=21.93, P=. 00,. eta(2) =. 23) and longer fixation durations ( F2.144= 28.86, P=. 00,. eta(2) =. 27) from all participants who gazed on faces with UCLP and a social smile. Conclusion: The hypotheses of the study were supported. Orthodontists and laypersons focused more attention on the upper lip and eyes in the resting position, respectively. The upper-lip area of the BCLP images captured more attention at rest

Effect of facial profile convexity on the perception of mandibular asymmetry using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetric images

TASDELEN, Fahir Ozer/0000-0001-6168-2154; DURAN, Gokhan Serhat/0000-0001-6152-6178WOS: 000489579100001PubMed: 31566877Objective the aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that sagittal anomalies have an effect on the perception of mandibular asymmetry. Secondly, it aimed to determine the asymmetry perception threshold of orthodontist and laypeople. Setting and Sample Population A total of 90 individuals were included in the study from different professions (Orthodontist: n:45, layperson: n:45). Materials & Methods the reference image was obtained with 3dMD device and selected from among the individuals with class I soft tissue relationship. in the sagittal direction, the chin area has been moved as to produce 5 and 10 degrees of change in facial convexity angle. Similarly, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 mm changes were made and recorded in video format. Manipulated images were scored by participants with VAS method. Results When differences between the groups were evaluated, the reference image was scored similarly by orthodontists and layperson (P: .017). No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in other parameters (P > .05). Asymmetry in 0-2 mm range was evaluated by orthodontist and layperson and statistically insignificant (P > .05). Similarly, the change between 8 mm and 10 mm was different in both groups and statistically insignificant (P > .05). Also, when there was no asymmetry, the sagittal direction was differently scored by the participants in both groups and statistically insignificant (P > .05). Conclusions It was observed that the effect of sagittal direction changes on asymmetry perception was not statistically significant