3D imaging in patients with orofacial clefts

Contains fulltext : 196831.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)Radboud University, 16 november 2018Promotores : Bergé, S.J., Carels, C.E.L., Fudalej, P.S

[Orthodontics in general practice 3. Angle Class II/1 malocclusion: one-phase treatment treatment preferred to two-phase treatment]

Contains fulltext : 69282.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)With regard to the optimal treatment timing for children with an Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion, there is an ongoing controversy on the effectiveness of a two-phase or a one-phase therapy. Two-phase treatment involves a first phase to correct the jaw relationship starting at the age of 7 to 9 years, and, when all permanent teeth are present, a second phase of treatment by fixed appliances. A one-phase treatment involves treatment of the jaw relationship and the dental malocclusion simultaneously or consecutively, starting during the early adolescence period. In recent years, several randomized controlled clinical trials have been performed on this topic. More recently, a Cochrane meta-analysis of these trials has been published. The results show that early treatment of an Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion followed by a second phase of treatment does not have any advantages over treatment that is started later and finished in one phase. One-phase treatment is as effective as two-phase treatment, while the time needed for treatment is shorter and, as a consequence, total costs are lower. Dentists should take into account this information, when treating children with an Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion or referring them to an orthodontist

Multidisciplinaire aanpak in de orthodontie

Item does not contain fulltex

[Research methods in dentistry 10. Assessment of orthodontic treatment need]

Item does not contain fulltextApproximately one third of the Dutch population has an objective need for orthodontic treatment. Yet, patients mostly seek treatment because of aesthetic reasons. Recent social developments and the increased attention for aesthetics ask for ways to objectively measure treatment need. This is not only important because of the risks of orthodontic treatment, but also because of financial reasons. In this article indices to verify treatment need, i.e. the Index for Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN), de Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) en de Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON), are discussed. All three indices seem to lead to a reduction of treatment need, especially in borderline cases. They can serve as 'neutral' instruments to discuss treatment need with patients and as instruments to allocate financial resources for orthodontic care

HOW PRO'S CAN CONTRIBUTE TO WHAT MATTERS MOST TO PATIENTS WITH OROFACIAL CLEFTS.

An orofacial cleft (OC) is a congenital cleft that may affect the lip, alveolus, hard and soft palate. An OC impacts the individuals' appearance, psychosocial well-being and causes functional problems including feeding, dentition, growth of jaws, hearing and speech. The treatment of an orofacial cleft usually reaches from birth until 22 years of age or later. To understand and listen in an objective manner, OC specific Patient reported Outcome (PRO) and experience (PRE) measures are imperative. In patients with OCs many shared decision making moments exist from birth until adulthood. The aim is to understand what knowledge exists on PROs and PREs in patients with OCs, to formulate challenges to improve care to OC patients and how research on OCs needs to adapt. PROs and PREs need to be tailored to the individual with an OC. A framework with specific OC key domains including appearance, facial function and Health related Quality of Life exists. The current framework does not include the social network around the OC patients yet. However attention should be put on including family and community support into the framework. Also at an individual level more attention should be paid to enhancing experiences compared to impeding experiences. To create a better understanding traditional indicators and outcomes are combined with PROMs in a structured way. Challenges were identified that seek to improve our complete set of (PRO and PRE) instruments to provide better care to the individual with an OC and provide a voice so that good shared decision making is enabled. Thereby the individual with an OC is further empowered

Maxillary arch width in unoperated adult bilateral cleft lip and alveolus and complete bilateral cleft lip and palate.

OBJECTIVES: To study maxillary arch width in adult patients with bilateral cleft lip and alveolus (BCLA) or with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), who have not had any surgery. SETTING AND SAMPLING POPULATION: Eighteen patients with BCLA, 13 patients with BCLP, and 24 controls from remote areas of Indonesia collected over 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental casts were digitized three-dimensionally using an industrial coordinate measuring machine (CCM) (Zeiss Numerex; Carl Zeiss, Stuttgart, Germany). Transversal distance between molars was measured on the tip of the distobuccal cusp and the tip of the mesiobuccal cusp, and for premolars and canines, the tip of the buccal cusps was recorded. Means and standard deviations were calculated for all variables. t-Test was used to determine whether the mean values of the cleft groups showed significant differences from each other and from the controls. Level of significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Transversal arch dimensions in the BCLA group were comparable to the controls except at the canine level. Intercanine distance, which is close to the alveolar cleft, was 4.3 mm (SE 1.4) smaller in the BCLA group (p = 0.002). In the BCLP group, a comparable pattern was found. At the canine level, mean transversal width was 7.2 mm (SE 1.9) smaller compared to the control group, but no significant differences were found in the other transversal dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Small differences are found in transversal dimensions in patients with BCLA and BCLP compared to a control group. Differences are most outspoken in the area near the cleft

Maxillary arch width in unoperated adult bilateral cleft lip and alveolus and complete bilateral cleft lip and palate.

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVES: To study maxillary arch width in adult patients with bilateral cleft lip and alveolus (BCLA) or with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), who have not had any surgery. SETTING AND SAMPLING POPULATION: Eighteen patients with BCLA, 13 patients with BCLP, and 24 controls from remote areas of Indonesia collected over 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental casts were digitized three-dimensionally using an industrial coordinate measuring machine (CCM) (Zeiss Numerex; Carl Zeiss, Stuttgart, Germany). Transversal distance between molars was measured on the tip of the distobuccal cusp and the tip of the mesiobuccal cusp, and for premolars and canines, the tip of the buccal cusps was recorded. Means and standard deviations were calculated for all variables. t-Test was used to determine whether the mean values of the cleft groups showed significant differences from each other and from the controls. Level of significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Transversal arch dimensions in the BCLA group were comparable to the controls except at the canine level. Intercanine distance, which is close to the alveolar cleft, was 4.3 mm (SE 1.4) smaller in the BCLA group (p = 0.002). In the BCLP group, a comparable pattern was found. At the canine level, mean transversal width was 7.2 mm (SE 1.9) smaller compared to the control group, but no significant differences were found in the other transversal dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Small differences are found in transversal dimensions in patients with BCLA and BCLP compared to a control group. Differences are most outspoken in the area near the cleft.1 mei 201

Anterior tooth wear and retention type until 5 years after orthodontic treatment.

Contains fulltext : 80090.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)OBJECTIVES: To study occlusal wear of anterior teeth in orthodontic patients retained with different retainers until 5 years post-treatment, and to investigate whether type of retention influences occlusal wear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Orthodontic patients (n=222), aged 15 years maximally at the start of treatment, were followed until 5 years post-treatment. In the maxilla, a retainer bonded on all six teeth or a removable retainer was used; in the mandible, a lingual retainer was bonded on all anterior teeth or on canines only. Dental casts were analyzed before treatment (T(0)), after treatment (T(1)), and 5 years post-treatment (T(5)). Incisal and canine wear were scored by applying a grading scale. Intercanine width, overjet, and overbite were measured with an electronic caliper. Statistics used were: Paired samples t-test for differences over time; Pearson correlation coefficients for associations between wear and retention type; and backward linear regression for influence of retention type on wear. RESULTS: There was an increase in wear during all time periods and for all teeth. From T(0) to T(5) an increase in maxillary intercanine width and maxillary retention had an effect on changes in canine wear. Incisal wear was associated with an increase in upper intercanine width (T(1)-T(5)). For both arches, an increase in maxillary intercanine width during treatment was associated with less progression of canine and incisal wear, but the explained variance was low, 13.4% and 19.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Retention type and, occasionally, an increase in intercanine width influence anterior teeth wear post-treatment. However, the clinical significance and impact of the examined retention methods on occlusal wear are small