Dentofacial Orthopedics
Parastoo Namdar; Hamed Karkhi; Nika Rezaeikalantari; Aboalfazl Hosseinnataj; Mojtaba Namdar; Shahin Arab; Maziar Khatami; Atena Shiva
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to compare the incidence of mucosal lesions and pain during orthodontic treatment with fixed versus removable orthodontic appliances.
Methods: This cross-sectional study involved 58 patients with fixed orthodontic appliances and 58 patients with removable orthodontic appliances, ...
Read More
Aim: This study aimed to compare the incidence of mucosal lesions and pain during orthodontic treatment with fixed versus removable orthodontic appliances.
Methods: This cross-sectional study involved 58 patients with fixed orthodontic appliances and 58 patients with removable orthodontic appliances, all aged between 15 and 30 years. The presence and location of lesions were recorded at two time points: two weeks and four weeks after the start of the study. Additionally, the level of pain experienced by the patients was quantified at these same time points using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The Chi-square test was used to compare the frequency of oral lesions between the two groups at the onset of treatment. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the pain score at the onset of treatment between the two groups. The level of significance was set at 0.05.
Results: The frequency of traumatic lesions at two and four weeks was significantly higher in the fixed group (P<0.050). The frequency of traumatic and allergic lesions increased with time in both groups (P<0.050). Lichenoid reactions, candidiasis, and exophytic lesions were only detected in the removable treatment group. At two and four weeks, the frequency of lesions in the buccal mucosa was significantly higher than in other areas in the fixed group (P<0.050). At four weeks, the pain score of patients was higher in the fixed treatment group (P<0.050).
Conclusion: At four weeks, the frequency of lesions was higher in the fixed group. Buccal mucosa was the most common location of lesions in both groups. Pain in the fixed group was higher than the removable group at four weeks.
Nilesh Mote; Vishal Dhanjani; Somit Das; Kunal Pallan
Abstract
Friction is defined as the force that resists a movement when objects move tangentially against each another. Various forces arise, when two surfaces which are in contact slide against one another. An orthodontist has various difficulties related to friction specially with sliding mechanics and has to ...
Read More
Friction is defined as the force that resists a movement when objects move tangentially against each another. Various forces arise, when two surfaces which are in contact slide against one another. An orthodontist has various difficulties related to friction specially with sliding mechanics and has to deals with it successfully to provide effective tooth movement. During Orthodontic treatment, sliding mechanics is used widely. Friction generated at the bracket/archwire interface is one of the disadvantages of this mechanics, which reduces the quality of desired orthodontic movement acquired. Both clinicians and scientists have an interest in the role of friction in Orthodontics, due to its application. As per clinical studies, the resistance to bodily tooth movement by sliding has far too less to do with friction. It is mainly a binding-and-release situation that is similar to conventional and self-ligating brackets.
Victor Prado Curvêllo; Fabrício Pinelli Valarelli; Luiz Nunes Pegoraro; Rodrigo Hermont Cançado; Thaís Marchini Oliveira; Karina Maria Salvatore de Freitas
Abstract
Introduction: The objective of this study was to report the correction of a maxillary transverse discrepancy in an adult patient using Le Fort I osteotomy procedure associated with a bone-borne maxillary distractor device. Both the indications, advantages of the procedure and the use protocol were highlighted.
Case ...
Read More
Introduction: The objective of this study was to report the correction of a maxillary transverse discrepancy in an adult patient using Le Fort I osteotomy procedure associated with a bone-borne maxillary distractor device. Both the indications, advantages of the procedure and the use protocol were highlighted.
Case Presentation: The results showed that the bone-borne distractor promoted the correction of maxillary transverse discrepancy with minimal side effects on the maxillary posterior teeth.
Conclusions: The bone-borne maxillary distractor device is a good alternative for correcting the maxillary transverse discrepancy in patients undergoing Le Fort I surgery, especially in cases presenting either periodontal disease or gingival recession of maxillary posterior teeth.
