The patient presented in this case report is a 10-year-old boy with hyperdivergent skeletal Class II associated with familial genetic agenesis of the second premolars. The treatment plan chosen was to close the spaces of agenesis using a bimaxillary appliance fixed buccally. The advantages and disadvantages of this treatment option were discussed. The result was stable and made it possible to avoid an implant-prosthetic solution, which would undoubtedly have been more restrictive over time.

Non-surgical treatment of Class II subdivision may involve complex mechanics or asymmetric tooth extraction in its resolution. This report demonstrates the result and the short-term stability of Class II subdivision treated with asymmetrically installed Herbst appliance followed by conventional fixed orthodontic appliance. The approach allowed the correction of the unilateral Class II molar relationship and increased overjet, as well as the deviation of dental midlines, with improvement in lip posture and facial profile. The results remained stable two years after treatment, confirming the treatment success.

UNASSIGNED: 24/09/1998; sex: female.
UNASSIGNED: 13 years 5 months old; 07/03/2012.
METHODS: Skeletal Class I with biretrusion, hypodivergent facial pattern; angle\'s Class II division 1 with overbite; moderate dento-maxillary discrepancy; maxillary incisor malposition.
UNASSIGNED: Bimaxillary buccal fixed appliance with Class II elastics. Active treatment duration: 25 months.
UNASSIGNED: 15 years 7 months old; 09/05/2014. POST-RETENTION DOCUMENTS: (minimum 1 year) 16 years 9 months old; 08/07/2015. Retention period: unlimited.

This article focuses on on the presentation and management 9 adult patients who experienced complications because of their maxillary or mandibular fixed retainers 5-33 years after orthodontic treatment. Such complications include the development of an anterior crossbite, open bite, incisal cant, and twist- and x-effects. The detrimental effects on periodontal health were highlighted, especially in the mandibular canines. A range of fixed retainer types was identified, including flexible spiral wire bonded to 4 maxillary or 6 mandibular anterior teeth, rigid wire bonded to mandibular canines only and fiber-reinforced composite fixed retainer. Orthodontic retreatment was necessary in all patients using fixed appliances or clear aligners. Radiographic findings from cone-beam computed tomography or orthopantomogram before and after retreatment are presented when available. Despite the improvement of teeth position clinically, the cone-beam computed tomography scans taken directly after the completion of orthodontic retreatment did not show notable improvement with regards to root proximity to the cortical plates. The prevention of further complications was highlighted, including the use of dual retention, remote monitoring, frequent follow-up appointments and the importance of developing clear guidelines for monitoring patients in retention for treating clinicians and general dentists to promote early detection of adverse changes.

Date of birth>09/06/2004; sex: female. Pre-treatment documents>13years 4months old: 07/07/2017. Diagnosis>Skeletal class II with mandibular retrusion, normodivergent facial pattern; class II division 2. Treatment planning>bimaxillary buccal fixed appliance. Duration of active treatment>29months. Post-treatment documents>15years 6months; 20/12/2019. Post-retention documents>16years 7months old; 04/01/2021. Retention period>2years 9months and still continued.

To reduce the risk of unwanted post-treatment changes following orthodontic treatment, use of bonded retainers is gaining popularity. Despite their efficacy and popularity with patients, it has been widely reported that there are significant risks with bonded retainers if they are not maintained and monitored. This case report demonstrates how unwanted tooth movement caused by a bonded retainer can lead to catastrophic failure and ultimately, tooth loss. The importance of active and regular monitoring of bonded retainers is highlighted and recommendations are made to the wider dental community on how to monitor such retainers in clinical practice.

New possibilities such as Surgery-first and Minimal Presurgical Orthodontics have become extra alternatives for patients, orthodontists, and oral and maxillofacial surgeons, with immediate facial improvements, reduced preparation time, and shorter treatment time. The purpose of this case report was to demonstrate the retreatment of a female patient, dissatisfied with the instability of the compensatory orthodontic treatment, chin deviation, and forward inclination of the maxillary incisors, which was successfully treated with Minimal Presurgical Orthodontic approach associated with customized lingual brackets and virtual planning on the open-source Blender 3D software, where the post-surgical maxillary lingual brackets were also designed. Orthodontic preparation was performed in 5 months. After surgery, orthodontic treatment was finished with the aid of mini-implants and miniplates. The total treatment time was 18 months. Great facial and occlusal results were obtained and the patient was satisfied. Overall, all treatment steps were performed following a digital workflow and open-source software. It is possible to conclude that Minimal Presurgical Orthodontic Preparation was an excellent alternative for the retreatment of this patient with mandibular asymmetry and increased treatment expectations. Additionally, the surgical planning and design of lingual braces with open-source software can be considered useful and low-cost alternatives for orthodontists.

This case report describes the camouflage treatment of an adult patient with hyperdivergent facial pattern presenting with severe Class II skeletal malocclusion, through the use of a hybrid clear aligner approach, that relies on both a partial lingual fixed appliance and the continuous use of Class II elastics throughout therapy. After 11 months of treatment, the goals had been achieved, highlighting that the correct diagnostic framework, proper patient selection and careful digital planning of a compromise treatment can provide satisfactory aesthetic and functional outcomes.

This clinical case demonstrates how the use of a hybrid approach consisting of aligners, orthodontic miniscrews and partial fixed appliances can be an effective and efficient solution for recovering adequate vertical space for satisfactory implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. Specifically, massive intrusion of an upper second molar (tooth 1.7) was achieved orthodontically with direct TADs support to allow otherwise unpredictable movements and achieve maximum anchorage control for subsequent implant rehabilitation of the fourth quadrant.

To compare the treatment and posttreatment effects of Invisalign aligners that incorporated SmartForce features and attachments to traditional fixed appliances.
This randomized controlled trial included 66 patients, 32 aligners, and 34 fixed-appliance patients. The median ages of the aligner and braces patients were 26.7 (interquartile range [IQR]: 9.8) and 25.9 (IQR: 16.6) years, respectively. Pretreatment occlusion was assessed using the ABO Discrepancy Index. Posttreatment (T1) and 6-month retention (T2) occlusions were quantified using the ABO Objective Grading System (OGS) scores.
The braces group finished treatment significantly (P < .001) earlier (0.4 years) than the aligner group. The median DI scores for the aligner and braces groups were 4.5 and 7.0, respectively, which was a statistically significant (P = .015), but clinically insignificant, difference. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for the total OGS scores or any of the individual component scores at debond (T1) or after 6 months of retention (T2). During the posttreatment period, alignment and overjet worsened significantly in the aligner group, while buccolingual inclinations and occlusal relations improved. Over the same period, alignment worsened in the braces group and buccolingual inclinations improved. There was no statistically significant between-group difference in posttreatment changes of the total OGS scores.
While patients with simple malocclusions require 4.8 months longer treatment times with aligners than traditional braces, the treatment and 6-month posttreatment occlusal outcomes are similar.