Mohsen Shirazi; Armin Soudi; Pedram Baghaeian; Yasamin Farajzadeh Jalali
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the crystal structure of mineral part in the Compact and Cancellous bones in different areas of alveolar bones.
Methods: In this study, 7 alveolar bone samples were prepared from buccal and distal plates of the jaws of three patients, and 4 samples ...
Read More
Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the crystal structure of mineral part in the Compact and Cancellous bones in different areas of alveolar bones.
Methods: In this study, 7 alveolar bone samples were prepared from buccal and distal plates of the jaws of three patients, and 4 samples from Cortical and Cancellous bone of two other patients' palate. After converting all the samples into powder, the samples were examined by using the X-RD method. Diffractogram of 1-7 samples were compared with each other and Diffractogram of 8-11 samples also were compared with each other too. Results: Comparing two corresponding points in the jaws the crystallinity degree in the mandible is higher than the maxilla. In comparison of two corresponding points in the maxilla and mandible degree of crystallinity and the crystalline hydroxyapatite on the right has been more than on the left. The amount of crystalline hydroxyapatite phase in females is more than males and crystallinity degree of this phase in males is more than females, and in younger people, the hydroxyapatite crystalline phase is more than others and crystallinity of this phase in older subjects is higher than others.
Conclusions: Tooth movement, despite the influence of the same forces, is faster on left side than the right side and is faster on maxilla than mandible. Tooth movement is faster in younger people than in older subjects.
Mohsen Shirazi; Homa Farhadifard; Meisam Moradi; Hamid Golshahi
Abstract
Introduction: Cleft lip and palate (CLP) is the most common congenital facial anomaly. Its incidence varies according to epidemiologic studies but is usually between 1 and 1.82 for each 1000 births. The etiology of this malformation is complex and includes both genetic and environmental factors.
Case ...
Read More
Introduction: Cleft lip and palate (CLP) is the most common congenital facial anomaly. Its incidence varies according to epidemiologic studies but is usually between 1 and 1.82 for each 1000 births. The etiology of this malformation is complex and includes both genetic and environmental factors.
Case Presentation: In this article a 13-year-old girl with CLP is presented. She was treated with expansion of maxillary arch form, bone grafting, pre surgical orthodontics, orthognathic surgery and minor esthetic surgical procedure.
Conclusions: Satisfactory results regarding functional occlusion, dental esthetics, and facial esthetics were achieved in the patient.
Mohsen Shirazi; Elahe Soltanmohamadi Borujeni; Homa Farhadifard
Abstract
Introduction: Hemifacial microsomia (HFM) is a branchial arch syndrome and the second most common craniofacial birth defect after cleft lip and palate. This syndrome involves the facial skeleton and ear. The most important goal in treatment of HFM is to improve facial symmetry. Traditionally, segment ...
Read More
Introduction: Hemifacial microsomia (HFM) is a branchial arch syndrome and the second most common craniofacial birth defect after cleft lip and palate. This syndrome involves the facial skeleton and ear. The most important goal in treatment of HFM is to improve facial symmetry. Traditionally, segment repositioning and costochondral graft were used for the correction of mandibular asymmetry but recently distraction osteogenesis has been used for it.
Case Presentation: In this article an 8-year-old boy with HFM is presented. He was treated with functional appliance for one year and then at 9 years age distraction osteogenesis was performed for him and at the age of 18, maxillary impaction (right side: 3mm, left side: 13 mm), BSSO of mandible and reduction genioplasty were done for the functional and esthetic reconstruction of the face.
Conclusions: Satisfactory results were obtained in the patient.
Mohsen Shirazi; Reihaneh Dajmar; M. J. Kharazi
Abstract
Aim: To extract or not to extract?! This fundamental decision has spawned some intense debate in orthodontics. Crowding, as a common problem in permanent dentition, is usually handled by extraction and non extraction treatment. It is well established that increase in dental arch length and width during ...
Read More
Aim: To extract or not to extract?! This fundamental decision has spawned some intense debate in orthodontics. Crowding, as a common problem in permanent dentition, is usually handled by extraction and non extraction treatment. It is well established that increase in dental arch length and width during orthodontic treatment tend to return toward pretreatment values after retention. An undocumented criticism of extraction treatment is that it results in narrower dental arches and therefore less attractive smile esthetics.Purpose: The main purpose of this study was to examine the dental arch width changes of extraction and non extraction treatment in patients treated in dental faculty of Tehran University of medical science.Materials and Methods: This study was performed on pretreatment and post treatment dental casts of 75 patients (36 extraction and 39 non extraction). Arch widths were measured from the cusp tips of the canines and first molars, using a digital caliper.Results: Multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the treatment changes in the arch width dimensions. The results show that intercanine arch width in both arches at the end of treatment was not significantly changed neither in extraction nor non extraction treatment. However; intermolar arch width in both arches shows differences between two groups. It increased significant) in non extraction treatment, and decreased in extraction samples.Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that intercanine arch width has no significant relationship with the type of treatment, but intermolar arch width shows statistically significant difference between two groups. We can conclude that constricted arch widths are not a usual outcome of extraction treatment, as there is no significant difference between post treatment intercanine arch width in two types x of treatment (DO 2006;1:187-93).
