Six-year evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in permanent-tooth Class III restorations

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the 6-year performance of the ART (atraumatic restorative treatment) approach in Class III restorations in permanent teeth. Materials and Methods: A total of 127 ART Class III restorations, using Ketac-Molar (3M ESPE) ionomer cement, was performed in 58 adult patients by one experienced operator in 1998. After a 6 years, 34 patients and 65 restorations were evaluated according to ART criteria. Two calibrated examiners carried out the evaluation. Data were analyzed by exact 95% Confidence Interval and Survival Analysis using the Jackknife method for standard error determination. Results: Among assessed restorations, 73.8% (95% CI = 61.5% to 86.2%) were in good condition and classified as successful, with a 67.6% (95% CI = 54.4% to 80.7%) cumulative survival rate. Failed restorations included 13.9% completely or partially missing restorations, 9.2% restorations that had been replaced by other treatment, 1.5% restorations with a large defect at the margin, and 1.5% restorations that presented high wear on the surface. No caries was observed even in those teeth in which restorations were absent. Conclusion: The 6-year success rate of the ART approach in anterior permanent teeth (Class III) was considered high.

Occlusal outcomes and efficiency of 1-and 2-phase protocols in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the occlusal outcomes and the efficiency of 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols in Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Treatment efficiency was defined as a change in the occlusal characteristics in a shorter treatment time. Methods: Class II Division 1 subjects ( n = 139) were divided into 2 groups according to the treatment protocol for Class II correction. Group 1 comprised 78 patients treated with a 1-phase treatment protocol at initial and final mean ages of 12.51 and 14.68 years. Group 2 comprised 61 patients treated with a 2-phase treatment protocol at initial and final mean ages of 11.21 and 14.70 years. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at the pretreatment stage to evaluate morphological differences in the groups. The initial and final study models of the patients were evaluated by using the peer assessment rating index. Chi-square tests were used to test for differences between the 2 groups for categorical variables. Variables regarding occlusal results were compared by using independent t tests. A linear regression analysis was completed, with total treatment time as the dependent variable, to identify clinical factors that predict treatment length for patients with Class II malocclusions. Results: Similar occlusal outcomes were obtained between the 1-phase and the 2-phase treatment protocols, but the duration of treatment was significantly shorter in the 1-phase treatment protocol group. Conclusions: Treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions is more efficient with the 1-phase than the 2-phase treatment protocol.

Class III subdivision malocclusion corrected with asymmetric intermaxillary elastics

Correcting a Class III subdivision malocclusion is usually a challenge for an orthodontist, especially if the patient`s profile does not allow for any extractions. One treatment option is to use asymmetric intermaxillary elastics to correct the unilateral anteroposterior discrepancy. However, the success of this method depends on the individual response of each patient and his or her compliance in using the elastics. The objectives of this article were to present a successful treatment of a Class III subdivision patient with this approach and to illustrate and discuss the dentoskeletal changes that contributed to the correction. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:221-30)

A modified orthodontic protocol for advanced periodontal disease in Class II division 1 malocclusion

An interdisciplinary approach is often the best option for achieving a predictable outcome for an adult patient with complex clinical problems. This case report demonstrates the combined periodontal/orthodontic treatment for a 49-year-old woman presenting with a Class II Division 1 malocclusion with moderate maxillary anterior crowding, a 9-mm overjet, and moderate to severe bone loss as the main characteristics of the periodontal disease. The orthodontic treatment included 2 maxillary first premolar extractions through forced extrusion. Active orthodontic treatment was completed in 30 months. The treatment outcomes, including the periodontal condition, were stable 17 months after active orthodontic treatment. The advantages of this interdisciplinary approach are discussed. Periodontally compromised orthodontic patients can be satisfactorily treated, achieving most of the conventional orthodontic goals, if a combined orthodontic/periodontic approach is used. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139:S133-44)

Cephalometric evaluation of Class II malocclusion treatment with cervical headgear and mandibular fixed appliances

The present study aimed to evaluate the cephalometric changes in Class II patients treated exclusively with cervical headgear (CHG) in the maxillary arch and fixed appliances in the mandibular arch as compared with a control group. The sample comprised 82 lateral cephalograms obtained pre- (T1) and post- (T2) treatment/observation of 41 subjects, divided into two groups: group 1-25 Class II division 1 patients (20 females and five males), with a mean pre-treatment age of 10.4 years, treated for a mean period of 2.5 years and group 2-16 Class II untreated subjects (12 females and four males), with a mean initial age of 9.9 years, followed for a mean period of 2.2 years. Treatment changes between the groups were compared by means of t-tests. The results showed restriction of maxillary forward displacement and also a restriction in maxillary length growth, improvement in the maxillomandibular relationship, restriction of mandibular incisor vertical development, reduction in overjet and overbite, and improvement in molar relationship. It was concluded that this treatment protocol corrected the Class II malocclusion characteristics primarily through maxillary forward growth restriction.