View clinical trials related to Malocclusion.
Filter by:Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) is considered the main osteotomy design in corrective mandibular surgery, however abnormal anatomical configuration of the posterior mandible with rolled out inferior border and thin mandibular rami with cortically adherent inferior alveolar nerve may interfere with the utilization of this osteotomy. The aim of this study is to introduce a novel modification of the intraoral inverted L ramus osteotomy (ILRO) to overcome these limitations in mandibular setback surgery. preoperative CBCT was requested for virtual planning and fabrication of cutting and drilling guides. Cutting lines were outlined to be consisted of four cuts; lateral ostectomy to uncover and lateralize the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN), posterior cut run horizontally from the anterior border of the ramus to a point just above the mandibular foramen, two anterior vertical cuts run from the anterior end of the lateral ostectomy to the inferior mandibular border. The guide was removed and the osteotomy lines were completed then the mandibular setback was oriented and fixed using pre-bent plates osteosynthesis. Inferior alveolar nerve function was regained perfectly one year post-operatively. This procedure introduces a robust alternative to the BSSO osteotomy in some cases of mandibular setback surgery.
Patients at the Orthodontic Department of the University of Damascus Dental School will be examined and subjects who meet the inclusion criteria will be included. Then, initial diagnostic records (diagnostic gypsum models, internal and external oral photographs, and radiographic images) will be studied to ensure that the selection criteria are accurately matched. This study aims to compare two groups of patients with moderate crowding of the lower anterior teeth. Experimental group: the patients in this group will be treated with periodontally accelerated osteogenic orthodontics Control group: the patients in this group will be treated using fixed appliances without any acceleration method.
Together with the increased adult patient demand for orthodontic treatment and the push toward increasingly personalized treatment, technology developments have resulted in a growing worldwide demand for clear aligners, to the point that they are now an essential part of any orthodontic practice. Despite the widespread use of the technique, the existing literature about reliability of orthodontic tooth movement with Invisalign aligners seems not encouraging. Several papers have demonstrated that what is virtually planned is not what is clinically achievable. However, it should be considered that clear aligner orthodontics techniques are customized not only for the patients but for orthodontists too. Therefore, virtual treatment plan design, in terms of attachments' design and placement, orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) staging and aligner deformation overengineering, or in other words aligners biomechanics knowledge, plays a crucial role in defining the quality of the orthodontic treatment with Invisalign aligners. Based on these considerations the present study was designed to answer two research-clinical questions: 1) which are the less predictable orthodontic movements with Invisalign aligners when the treatment plan is designed by expert operators? and 2) which is the impact of the orthodontist experience, in terms of patient motivation, on the predictability of orthodontic tooth movement with Invisalign aligners? To answer those questions, the predictability of OTM in a sample of Invisalign patients treated by expert operators was compared with the predictability of OTM in a sample treated by post-graduate students. The null hypothesis for question 1 is that all the prescribed orthodontic tooth movements are predictable, while the null hypothesis for question 2 is that the reliability of orthodontic tooth movement is not affected by operator experience. 98 patients (31 M, 67 F; mean age 28 ± 12 years) were selected among those in treatment at the Department of Orthodontics of the University of Turin, which is the coordinating center, and at 5 private orthodontics offices across Italy. The inclusion criteria for practitioners were as follows: orthodontist with huge and renewed experience in Invisalign treatments; has the ability to scan plaster model or to collect intraoral scans and upload (via internet) the files obtained to a central repository; affirms that the practice can devote sufficient time in patient scheduling to allow focused recording of all data required for the study; and does not anticipate retiring, selling the practice, or moving during the study. Signed, written informed consent was required before inclusion in the trial. All participants included in this prospective observational study had Class I or mild Class II malocclusion with mild to moderate crowding or spacing in the maxillary and mandibular dental arches (nonextraction cases). Interproximal enamel reduction was performed as prescribed in each patient's virtual treatment plan. The average treatment time was 10 ± 5 months. The sample considered a total of 2716 teeth that were analyzed overlapping the real post-treatment .stl file obtained with the final intra-oral scan to the planned post-treatment .stl file obtained exporting the final stage of the virtual setup. Every virtual treatment plan was designed by orthodontists with a huge and renewed experience in Invisalign treatments. While in the private practices the treatment was directly conducted by 5 expert orthodontist (mean age 45.6 ± 8.2) who controlled the patient at every appointment, in the University setting the treatment was conducted by 5 post-graduate students at the last year of their program (mean age 26.4± 1.4). Control appointments were fixed at 6 weeks interval in both the University and the private settings. Posttreatment digital models and final virtual treatment plan models were exported from ClinCheck® software as stereolithography files and subsequently imported into Geomagic Qualify software (3D Systems(r), Rock Hill, South Carolina, USA), in order to compare individual tooth positions between digital models of each patient. The dental arches were superimposed using the landmark-based method and the surface-based method (Best Fit Alignment). So that the differences between the tooth positions could be calculated, 3 reference planes were identified on the virtual treatment plan model. Differences between the actual treatment outcome and the predicted outcome were calculated and tested for statistical significance for each tooth in the mesial-distal, vestibular-lingual, and occlusal-gingival directions, as well as for angulation, inclination, and rotation. Differences greater than 0.5 mm for linear measurements and 2° for angular measurements were considered clinically significant. In addition, the statistical significance of categorical variables was tested for each previously calculated difference in tooth movement.
This in vivo comparative study will evaluate the changes in the mandibular dimensions and the glenoid fossa after skeletal class III subjects' therapy by chincup appliance and compare it with an untreated class III control group. Pre and post-treatment low-dose computed tomography images will be taken before and after achieving positive overjet and undergoing 16 months of active treatment/ observation. Dimensional and volumetric changes in the mandible, condyles, and glenoid fossa will be calculated and compared to those observed in the control group.
Thirty-eight patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolars and maximum anchorage to retract the upper anterior teeth will participate in the study. They will be divided randomly into two groups: electrical group and control group. In each group, en-masse retraction will be initiated after completion of the leveling and alignment phase via closed nickel-titanium coil springs applying 250 g of force per side, Mini-implants will be used as an anchor unit. The dental changes will be detected using dental casts and to evaluate the rate of teeth retraction.
60 patients needed therapeutic extraction of the maxillary first premolars with subsequent retraction of the maxillary canines were divided to randomly three groups: (1) PRP group: Received PRP injections, (2) I-PRF group: Received I-PRF injections, (3) Control group: conventional treatment with no injections. TPAs were used as an anchor unit. Coil springs were used to distalize the upper canines on 0.019 x 0.025-inch stainless archwires. Alginate impressions and dental casts of the maxillary arch were done at five-time points over a 4-month follow-up period. The amount of canine movement, canine rotation, and anchorage loss were measured on three-dimensional digital models superimposed on the rugae area.
Thirty two patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolars and en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth will participate in the study. They will be divided randomly into two groups: electrical group and control group. In each group, en-masse retraction will be initiated after completion of the leveling and alignment phase via closed nickel-titanium coil springs applying 250 g of force per side, Mini-implants will be used as an anchor unit. The overall retraction duration will be calculated. The skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes will be detected using panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs which will be obtained pretreatment, pre and post en-masse retraction of the anterior teeth.
Class II malocclusion presents a major and common challenge to orthodontists. Treatment of Class II malocclusion is one of the most investigated and controversial issues in contemporary orthodontics because of the extensive variability of treatment strategies addressing the morphological characteristics of this malocclusion. The therapeutic approaches include tooth extractions, orthopedic appliances and extraoral or intraoral distalizing appliances. Maxillary molar distalization is one of the most common strategies to correct Class II molar relationship and it is commonly indicated for patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion or minor skeletal discrepancies. One of the most used devices is Pendulum appliance, introducted by Hilgers in 1992. In the last decades, the orthodontic treatment with removable clear aligners has become an increasing common choice because of the growing number of adult patients who ask for aesthetic and comfortable alternatives to conventional fixed appliances. In 1997, Align Technology (Santa Clara, Calif) adapted and incorporated modern technologies to introduce the clear aligner treatment (CAT). Only few investigations have focused on the predictability of orthodontic tooth movement with CAT. A systematic review by Rossini et al. pointed out that among the dental movements analyzed in 11 studies, the bodily distalization was the most predictable. Clinicians can consider the use of aligners in treatment planning for adult patients requiring 2 to 3 mm of maxillary molar distalization. However, a detailed analysis of the skeletal and dental changes that compared pendulum appliance and clear aligners in class II treatment is still lacking. On the basis of these considerations, the aim of the present prospective study was to analyze the effects on vertical dentoskeletal changes following maxillary molar distalization with pendulum and full fixed appliances and clear aligners.
Stability of the orthodontic miniscrews placed in the mandible is still considered to bare higher risk of failure compared to other intraoral locations. The aim of our study was to determine the influence of the miniscrew size on their long-term stability, occurrence of oral mucosa inflammation and pain lasting over 48 hours after implantation.
54 patients who need extraction-based treatment of the maxillary first premolars with subsequent retraction of the maxillary canines will be divided randomly into three groups in this trial. The prolonged duration of the treatment period can cause many side effects such as white spots, caries, periodontal diseases, and pain and discomfort. So many efforts have been made to reduce the treatment time. Many procedures have been introduced to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement, which can category as surgical or non-surgical. Piezocision is a minimally invasive surgical method for accelerating orthodontic tooth movement and shortening treatment time. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is one of the physical acceleration methods that have contributed to decreasing treatment time. There are three groups: The first group (control group): the canine retraction in this group will be performed in conventional method. The second group (Experimental group): the canine retraction in this group will be performed in association with piezocision. The third group (Experimental group): the canine retraction in this group will be performed in association with low-level laser therapy.