Orthodontics
Somasundara Ramadevi; Anjith Shirley Gladstone; Sarala Manjappa Laxmikanth; Chunduri Raghunandan; Jairaj Vani; Shrikanth Shendre; Khan Mahamad Irfanulla; Maqbool Sameena Begum; Riyaz Khadeer
Abstract
Aim: The use of pre-procedural mouth rinse for prevention of COVID-19 can reduce viral load but can alter the bond strength. The purpose of this study was to determine any correlation between the use of these pre-procedural mouth rinse and the shear-bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets.Methods: ...
Read More
Aim: The use of pre-procedural mouth rinse for prevention of COVID-19 can reduce viral load but can alter the bond strength. The purpose of this study was to determine any correlation between the use of these pre-procedural mouth rinse and the shear-bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets.Methods: Thirty-three maxillary premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were used. The buccal surfaces of all teeth were bonded with orthodontic brackets. Later, each tooth was embedded into acrylic resin and stored in distilled water. Teeth were randomly divided into three groups (group I: hydrogen peroxide mouth rinse, group II: povidone-iodine mouth rinse, and group III: artificial saliva), and stored in each solution for 12 hours. Later, each tooth was subjected to SBS testing using a universal testing machine. Data were statistically evaluated using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc test (Tukey’s HSD) with a significance of p< 0.05.Results: The highest mean SBS was observed in the artificial saliva (control group), followed by the povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide groups.Conclusion: Hydrogen peroxide mouth rinses should not be used during fixed orthodontic treatment because it alters bond strength.
Orthodontics
Mahamad Irfanulla Khan; Praveen Kumar Neela; Ajit Kumar Jaiswal; Nayeem unnisa; Abhik Purkayastha; Amita Coutinho; Nadeem Ahmed
Abstract
Background: Fixed functional appliances used in the treatment of Class II malocclusion have the advantage of requiring minimal patient compliance, and they can be used simultaneously with fixed orthodontic appliances. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the treatment effects of the ...
Read More
Background: Fixed functional appliances used in the treatment of Class II malocclusion have the advantage of requiring minimal patient compliance, and they can be used simultaneously with fixed orthodontic appliances. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD) in growing patients with Class II malocclusion. Methods: A total of 50 pre-treatment (T1) and post-treatment (T2) Lateral Cephalometric Radiographs (LCRs) of 25 patients treated with Forsus fatigue resistant device (mean age = 12 ± 0.54years) for the correction of skeletal class II malocclusion were compared with the 25 untreated class II control patients (mean age 12 ± 0.38 years) who did not undergo any treatment during this period. The skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes were evaluated using cephalometric measurements, and the treatment changes were analyzed by paired t-test. Results: The LCRs findings showed that the FFRD produced more dentoalveolar changes with less skeletal changes. The dentoalveolar changes in the FFRD group include significant reduction of overjet & overbite (p<0.001), retroclination of maxillary incisors (p<0.001), proclination and intrusion of the mandibular incisors (p<0.001) and mesialization of mandibular first molars (p<0.001). A significant improvement in the skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue structures of the face was achieved in the FFRD group compared with the control group.Conclusion: The FFRD is effective in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. The Class II correction was achieved by a combination of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects, and wherein dentoalveolar changes were more predominant compared to the skeletal changes.