Microabrasion technique for treatment of demineralization after debonding.

PubMed: 23395893[No abstract available

Comparison of 2 distalization systems supported by intraosseous screws

PubMedID: 17276855Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 2 distalization systems supported by intraosseous screws for maxillary molar distalization. Methods: Forty subjects with skeletal Class I dental Class II malocclusion were divided into group 1 (8 girls, 12 boys) and group 2 (11 girls, 9 boys). An anchorage unit was prepared by placing an intraosseous screw in the premaxillary area of each subject. To increase the anchorage in group 2, we used an acrylic plate resembling the Nance button around the screw. The screws were placed and immediately loaded to distalize the maxillary first molars or second molars when they were present. Skeletal and dental changes were measured on cephalograms, and dental casts were obtained before and after distalization. Results: The average distalization times were 4.6 months for group 1 and 5.4 months for group 2. On the cephalograms, the maxillary first molars were tipped 9.05° in group 1 and 0.75° in group 2. The mean distal movements were 3.95 mm in group 1 and 3.88 mm in group 2. On the dental casts, the mean distalization amounts were 4.85 mm for group 1 and 3.70 mm for group 2. In group 1, the maxillary molars were rotated distopalatally to a moderate degree, but this was not significant in group 2. Mild protrusion of the maxillary central incisors was also recorded for group 1 but not for group 2. However, there were no changes in overjet, overbite, and mandibular plane angle measurements for either group. Conclusions: Immediately loaded intraosseous screw-supported anchorage units were successful for molar distalization in both groups. In group 2, side effects such as molar tipping and rotation were smaller, but distalization times were longer and hygiene was poorer. © 2007 American Association of Orthodontists

Use of the intraosseous screw for unilateral upper molar distalization and found well balanced occlusion.

PubMed: 17094798BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to present a temporary anchorage device with intraosseous screw for unilateral molar distalization to make a space for the impacted premolar and to found well balanced occlusion in a case. CASE PRESENTATION: A 13-year-old male who have an impacted premolar is presented with skeletal Class I and dental Class 2 relationship. The screw was placed and immediately loaded to distalize the left upper first and second molar. The average distalization time to achieve an overcorrected Class I molar relationship was 3.6 months. There was no change in overjet, overbite, or mandibular plane angle measurements. Mild protrusion (0.5 mm) of the upper left central incisor was also recorded. CONCLUSION: Immediately loaded intraosseous screw-supported anchorage unit was successful in achieving sufficient unilateral molar distalization without anchorage loss. This treatment procedure was an alternative treatment to the extraction therapy

Malocclusion prevalence and orthodontic treatment need in central Anatolian adolescents compared to European and other nations’ adolescents

PubMed: 26691973Objective: To determine the prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in a large sample of Central Anatolian adolescents and compare them with European-other nations’ adolescents. Methods: The sample included 1125 boys and 1204 girls aged between 12 and 16 years with no previous orthodontic treatment history. Occlusal variables examined were molar relationship, overjet, overbite, crowding, midline diastema, posterior crossbite, and scissors bite. The dental health (DHC) and aesthetic components (AC) of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) were used as an assessment measure of the need for orthodontic treatment for the total sample. Results: The results indicated a high prevalence of Class I (34.9%) and Class II, Division 1 malocclusions (40.0%). Moreover, increased (18%) and reduced bites (14.%), and increased (25.1%) and reversed overjet (10.%) were present in the sample. Conclusion: Using the DHC of the IOTN, the proportion of subjects estimated to have great and very great treatment need (grades 4 and 5) was 28.%. However, only 16.7% of individuals were in need (grades 8-10) of orthodontic treatment according to the AC. © 2015 Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics

Does chlorhexidine affect the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets?

Background/purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of 1% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded with Transbond XT (XT, 3M Unitek) and Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TSEP, 3M Unitek). Materials and methods: In total, 75 extracted premolars were collected and randomly divided into five groups of 15 teeth each. Brackets were bonded to teeth using a different experimental technique for each group as follows: (I) (control): etch/dry/Transbond XT; (II) CHX gel/etch/dry/Transbond XT; (III) etch/dry/CHX gel/Transbond XT; (IV) dry/TSEP; and (V) CHX gel/dry/TSEP. All products were used according to the manufacturers' instructions. An Instron Universal Testing Machine was used to directly apply an occlusal shear force onto the enamel-bracket interface at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. Residual adhesive on each tooth was evaluated using an adhesive remnant index (ARI). Analysis of variance was used to compare the SBS of the groups, and a Chi-squared test was used to compare ARI scores. Results: Group I had the highest mean SBS (16.47 ± 4.2 MPa), followed by Groups II (16.24 ± 4.5 MPa), III (13.08 ± 4.50 MPa), IV (11.95 ± 2.7 MPa) and V (11.16 ± 2.8 MPa). No statistical differences were observed between Groups I and II (P > 0.05) or between groups IV and V (P > 0.05). However, SBS scores for Groups IV and V were significantly lower than those of Groups I and II (P > 0.05). No significant difference was observed in ARI scores among any of the groups (P > 0.05). Prior application of CHX gel did not significantly affect the SBS of orthodontic bonding adhesives. © 2011, Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China