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.
Dentofacial Orthopedics
Farzin Heravi; Farzaneh laalalizadeh; Majid Ghanbarzadeh; Mahsa Ghorbani
Abstract
Aim: Maxillary transverse deficiencies pose significant challenges in orthodontics, necessitating effective treatment methods. Traditional approaches like rapid maxillary expansion (RME) have demonstrated limitations, especially in skeletally mature patients. Skeletal anchorage-based expansion methods, ...
Read More
Aim: Maxillary transverse deficiencies pose significant challenges in orthodontics, necessitating effective treatment methods. Traditional approaches like rapid maxillary expansion (RME) have demonstrated limitations, especially in skeletally mature patients. Skeletal anchorage-based expansion methods, such as miniscrew-assisted rapid maxillary expansion (MARME), have emerged as viable alternatives, offering advantages in terms of reduced dental side effects and improved stability.Report of a Case: A 14-year-old female presented with a severely constricted maxillary arch and intricate occlusal issues. This case report details the utilization of MARME as a treatment modality. Miniscrews were strategically placed by an orthodontist specialist, and the expansion process was carefully monitored. Post-treatment outcomes revealed a significant increase in midpalatal suture opening width, showcasing the effectiveness of MARME. Cone beam computed tomography images demonstrated a notable expansion of the transverse dimension, leading to improved occlusal relationships.Conclusion: Skeletal anchorage-based expansion, particularly MARME, stands out as a preferred method for addressing maxillary constriction in adolescents. This case serves as an illustration of the feasibility and distinctive advantages of Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs) in the context of maxillary expansion for skeletally mature patients.
