OBJECTIVE: To evaluate anchorage loss after en masse retraction in bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion patients using friction vs frictionless mechanics.
METHODS: Thirty patients with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion needing extraction of upper first premolars and en masse retraction with maximum anchorage were included in this two-arm, parallel, single-center, single-blinded randomized clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio using fully sealed opaque envelopes. Friction group retraction utilized elastomeric power chain between miniscrews and hooks crimped mesial to upper canines on 17 × 25 stainless steel archwire. Frictionless group used customized T-loop springs loading upper first molars indirectly anchored to miniscrews. Activation was every 4 weeks until full retraction. The primary outcome assessed was anchorage loss evaluated at cusp tip and root apex of the first molar. First molar rotation, incisor tip and torque, and root resorption of anterior teeth were evaluated on digital models and cone beam computed tomography taken before and after space closure.
RESULTS: Anchorage loss at crown of first molar was significantly more in frictionless group by 2.1 mm (95% CI = -0.4 to 3.5), (P = .014), while there was no significant difference in anchorage loss at root apex between groups. Significant mesial in molar rotation of 6.672° (95% CI = 12.2-21.2), (P = 0.02) was greater in the frictionless group. Both groups showed comparable tip, torque, and root resorption values. No severe harms were reported. There was mild gingival overgrowth and inflammation in the frictionless group due to T-loop irritation.
CONCLUSIONS: Extra anchorage considerations are needed during en masse retraction when frictionless mechanics is implemented as higher anchorage loss and molar rotation were detected. No difference in tip, torque, and root resorption was observed.

BACKGROUND: Mandibular second premolar agenesis is a common problem in orthodontics and is often treated in conjunction with maxillary counterbalancing extractions. However, in cases without maxillary crowding or dental protrusion, space closure may pose challenges leading to compromised occlusal results or patient profile. Multiple techniques have been described to treat these patients; nevertheless, there is a paucity of data comparing effectiveness of space closure utilizing various anchorage techniques. The goal of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the Herbst device during mandibular molar protraction and compare it to the use of temporary anchorage device (TADs) in patients with mandibular second premolar agenesis.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 33 patients with mandibular premolar agenesis treated without maxillary extractions. Of these patients, 21 were treated with protraction Herbst devices and 12 with TADs. Changes in molar and incisor positions, skeletal base positions and occlusal plane angulations were assessed on pretreatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) lateral cephalograms. Scans/photographs at T0 and T1 were used to evaluate canine relationship changes representing anchorage control. Space closure and breakage/failure rates were also compared. Data was analyzed with paired and unpaired t-tests at the significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS: Within the Herbst group, changes in mandibular central incisor uprighting and mandibular molar crown angulations were statistically significant. However, no significant differences were noted between the Herbst and TAD groups. Protraction rates as well as overall treatment times were comparable (0.77 mm/month vs. 0.55 mm/month and 3.02 years vs. 2.67 years, respectively). Canine relationships were maintained or improved toward a class I in 82.85% of the Herbst sample, compared to in 66.7% of the TAD sample. Emergency visits occurred in 80.1% of the Herbst group, with cementation failures or appliance breakages as the most common reasons.
CONCLUSIONS: The Herbst device could be a viable modality in cases with missing mandibular premolars where maximum anterior anchorage is desired, or if patients/parents are resistant to TADs. Furthermore, they could be beneficial in skeletal class II patients with mandibular deficiency who also need molar protraction. However, the increased incidence of emergency visits must be considered when treatment is planned.

UNASSIGNED: Canine retraction has been successful with various force systems and retraction techniques. The appointment interval for force reactivation in canine retraction along the archwire is 4-8 weeks.
UNASSIGNED: The aim was to evaluate the effect of different reactivation intervals on the rate of space closure.
UNASSIGNED: This split-mouth randomized clinical trial recruited 38 patients indicated for the first premolar extraction.
UNASSIGNED: Monthly digital models were acquired for 6 months. The first premolars were extracted, and temporary anchorage devices were placed for maximum anchorage control. The canines were retracted using elastomeric chains which were replaced every 2, 4, 6, or 8 weeks. The monthly rate of canine retraction was measured. The time to space closure was calculated. The secondary outcome was the mesial drift of the first molars.
UNASSIGNED: The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the Friedman test evaluated and compared the groups.
UNASSIGNED: There was no significant difference between the monthly canine retraction rate or the first molar mesial drift between the groups. The mean time to space closure was 5.74 months in the 2-week reactivation group, which was statistically less than the other groups.
UNASSIGNED: The 2-week reactivation interval may reduce time to space closure. Direct anchorage control with miniscrews limited anchorage loss significantly.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Extraction space closure is a challenging phase during orthodontic treatment that affects not only the total treatment duration but also the whole treatment outcome.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficiency of friction and frictionless mechanics during en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in adult patients with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.
METHODS: Two-arm parallel group, single-center randomized clinical trial.
METHODS: Thirty-two adult patients with bimaxillary protrusion were recruited and randomly allocated to two different retraction mechanics. A friction group, using NiTi coil springs and a frictionless group using closing T-loops for en-masse retraction. Randomization in a 1:1 ratio was generated by Microsoft Excel. The randomization numbers were secured in opaque sealed envelopes for allocation concealment. Retraction started in all patients following first premolars extraction using miniscrews as a source of indirect anchorage. Activation was done on a monthly basis until complete retraction of anterior segment. The rate of retraction, amount of anchorage loss, the dental, and soft tissue changes were analyzed on digital models and lateral cephalograms taken before retraction and after space closure.
METHODS: The outcome assessor was blinded through data concealment during assessment.
RESULTS: Two patients were lost to follow up, so 30 patients completed the trial. The rate of anterior segment retraction was 0.88 ± 0.66 mm/month in the frictionless group compared to 0.72 ± 0.36 mm/month in the friction group which was statistically significant. Anchorage loss of 1.18 ± 0.72 mm in the friction group compared to 1.29 ± 0.55 mm in the frictionless group with no significant difference. Comparable dental and soft tissue changes following en-masse retraction were reported in both groups, with no statistically significant difference.
UNASSIGNED: one patient complained of soft tissue swelling following miniscrew insertion, but the swelling disappeared after one week of using mouth wash.
CONCLUSIONS: The study focused only on the maxillary arch.
CONCLUSIONS: Both mechanics have successfully achieved the required treatment objectives in patients with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Frictionless group showed a faster rate of retraction than the friction group, which was statistically but not clinically significant.
BACKGROUND: Clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT03261024.

Congenital missing second premolars in growing patients should be accurately evaluated in order to establish a suitable treatment plan. Concerning the decision of whether to close or maintain spaces in the dental arches, it shall also be based on biomechanical aspects and the aesthetic traits of individual patients. Accordingly, the option of closing tooth spaces requires an adequate application of biomechanical principles aimed at avoiding detrimental effects on dental arches and facial profile. An effective use of titanium miniscrews for immediate loading, associated with efficient sliding mechanics, can represent an elective way to successfully treat such cases. Herein, the objective is to describe the procedure and underscore the advantages of the mentioned approach by presenting a clinical case along with long-term follow-up.

UNASSIGNED: Overtreatment design of clear aligner treatment (CAT) in extraction cases is currently primarily based on the clinical experience of orthodontists and is not supported by robust evidence on the underlying biomechanics. This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effects of overtreatment strategies involving different maxillary anterior teeth intrusion patterns during anterior teeth retraction by CAT in extraction cases.
UNASSIGNED: A finite element model of the maxillary dentition with the first premolar extracted was constructed. A loading method of clear aligners (CAs) based on the initial state field was proposed. The iterative method was used to simulate the long-term orthodontic tooth movement under the mechanical load exerted by the CAs. Three groups of CAs were utilized for anterior teeth retraction (G0: control group; G1: incisors intrusion group; G2: anterior teeth intrusion group). Tooth displacement and occlusal plane rotation tendency were analyzed.
UNASSIGNED: In G0, CAT caused lingual tipping and extrusion of the incisors, distal tipping and extrusion of the canines, mesial tipping, and intrusion of the posterior teeth. In G1, the incisors showed minimal extrusion, whereas the canines showed increased extrusion and distal tipping tendency. G2 showed the smallest degree of posterior occlusal plane angle rotation, while the inclination tendency of the canines and second premolars decreased.
UNASSIGNED: 1. In CAT, tooth displacement tendency may change with increased wear time. 2. During anterior teeth retraction, the incisor intrusion pattern can provide effective vertical control for the lateral incisors but has little effect on the central incisors. Anterior teeth intrusion patterns can alleviate the inclination of canines and second premolars, resulting in partial relief of the roller-coaster effect.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The most common treatment approaches for patients missing maxillary lateral incisors are implant replacement (IT) and orthodontic space closure (SC). Treatment techniques change and improve over time, and it is of interest to know if improvements differ between the methods.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the aesthetic outcome and other clinical findings in patients with one or two missing maxillary lateral incisors who were treated with a 10-year difference in time, with either orthodontic space closure or implant replacement.
METHODS: A total of 88 patients were included in the study. Forty-four patients treated between 2011 and 2018 were included as the latter cohort (LC). The LC was compared to the early cohort (EC; n = 44), treated between 2001 and 2008. A total of 132 teeth was analysed: 62 teeth in the EC (28 teeth in IT cases and 34 teeth in SC cases) and 70 teeth in the LC (34 teeth in IT cases and 36 teeth in SC cases). Long-term clinical and aesthetic outcomes were evaluated.
RESULTS: An improvement over time was found in crown length, BoP, papilla, the inclination of incisors, and overall appearance in IT cases and in crown colour and overbite in SC cases. A deterioration over time was found in crown length and BoP among the SC cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Among the IT cases, an improvement in outcomes was noted over time. When comparing SC cases the colour of the crown and overbite had improved, while crown length and BoP had deteriorated over time.

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.