Long-term stability of surgical-orthodontic open-bite correction

Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term stability of open-bite surgical-orthodontic correction. Methods: Thirty-nine patients at an initial mean age of 20.83 years were evaluated cephalometrically at pretreatment (T1), immediately after treatment (T2), and at the last recall (T3), with a mean follow-up time of 8.22 years. The surgical protocol included single-jaw or double-jaw surgery. Because the patients had different anteroposterior malocclusions, the sample was divided into a Class I and Class II (I-II) subgroup (3 Class I, 20 Class II malocclusion patients) and a Class III subgroup (16 patients). The dentoskeletal characteristics of the total sample and the subgroups were compared at T1, T2, and T3 with dependent analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Overbite relapse in the posttreatment period was statistically significant in the whole sample and the Class I-II subgroup. Fourteen patients of the whole sample (35.9%) had clinically significant open-bite relapse (negative overbite). Conclusions: There was a statistically significant open-bite relapse in the overall sample and in the Class I-II subgroup. The clinically significant values of long-term open-bite correction stability were 64.11%, 47.82%, and 87.50% in the overall sample, the Class I-II subgroup, and the Class III subgroup, respectively. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:254.e1-254.e10)

Caries-preventive Efficacy and Retention of a Resin-modified Glass lonomer Cement and a Resin-based Fissure Sealant: A 3-year Split-mouth Randomised Clinical Trial

Purpose: This prospective clinical trial compared the retention rate and caries-preventive efficacy of two types of sealant modalities over a 3-year period. Materials and Methods: Using a split-mouth randomised design, 1280 sealants were randomly applied on sound permanent second molars of 320 young patients aged between 12 and 16 years. Half of the teeth (n = 640) were sealed with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Vitremer (TM), 3M ESPE) and the other half (n = 640) with a conventional light-cure, resin-based fissure sealant (LCRB) (Fluoroshield (R), Dentsply Caulk). Teeth were evaluated at baseline, 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 30- and 36-month intervals with regard to retention and new caries development. Results: On the sealed occlusal surfaces after 3 years, 5.10% of RMGIC and 91.08% of LCRB sealants were totally intact and 6.37% of RMGIC and 7.65% of LCRB sealants were partially intact. New caries lesions were found in 20.06% of RMGIC sealed occlusal surfaces, compared to 8.91% for LCRB sealants. Conclusions: The findings of the present clinical study suggest that RMGIC should be used only as a transitional sealant that can be applied to newly erupting teeth throughout the eruptive process, whereas LCRB sealants are used to successfully prevent occlusal caries lesions once an effective rubber dam can be achieved. It can be concluded that there are differences between the RMGIC and LCRB sealants over a 3-year period in terms of the retention rate and caries-preventive efficacy. RMGIC can serve as a simple and economic sealing solution, however provisional. Due to its poor retention rate, periodic recalls are necessary, even after 6 months, to eventually replace the lost sealant.

Domestic use of a disclosing solution for denture hygiene: a randomised trial

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the domestic use of a disclosing agent for denture hygiene. Materials and methods: Completely edentulous participants wearing maxillary dentures were randomly assigned to one of the three intervention groups: (1) Follow-up only (control; n = 12); (2) Oral and denture hygiene instructions (n = 10); (3) Instructions associated with the home use of a disclosing agent (1% neutral red; n = 10). Biofilm coverage area (%) over internal and external surfaces of the maxillary denture was assessed at baseline and after 14 and 90 days. Data were evaluated by generalised estimating equations based on score tests (alpha = 0.05). Results: The participants presented low changes for areas of biofilm coverage (14 days (%): internal: GI = 1.4 +/- 0.9; GII = 1.5 +/- 1.3; GIII = -0.4 +/- 0.9; external: GI = 1.4 +/- 1.5; GII = 1.5 +/- 1.4; GIII = -0.4 +/- 0.9; 90 days (%): internal: GI = 2.0 +/- 0.9; GII = 2.2 +/- 1.4; GIII = 0.3 +/- 1.0; external: GI = 2.1 +/- 1.4; GII = 2.2 +/- 1.5; GIII = 0.3 +/- 0.9). Changes were similar for the three groups (p = 0.293) and were not influenced by the test time (p = 0.218). Conclusion: It can be concluded that the home use of a disclosing agent for denture hygiene does not improve the removal of the biofilm, particularly for patients with adequate oral hygiene habits.