Comparative distalization effects of Jones jig and pendulum appliances

Introduction: In this study, we compared the dentoalveolar changes of Class II patients treated with Jones jig and pendulum appliances. Methods: The experimental group comprised 40 Class II malocclusion subjects, divided into 2 groups: group 1 consisted of 20 patients (11 boys, 9 girls) at a mean pretreatment age of 13.17 years, treated with the Jones jig appliance for 0.91 years; group 2 comprised 20 patients (8 boys, 12 grls) at a mean pretreatment age of 13.98 years, treated with the pendulum appliance for 1.18 years. Only active treatment time of molar distalization was evaluated in the predistalization and postdistalization lateral cephalograms. Molar, second premolar, and incisor angular and linear variables were obtained. The intergroup treatment changes in these variables were compared with independent t tests. Results: The maxillary second premolars showed greater mesial tipping and extrusion in the Jones jig group, indicating more anchorage loss during molar distalization with this appliance. The amounts and the monthly rates of molar distalization were similar in both groups. Conclusions: The Jones jig group showed greater mesial tipping and extrusion of the maxillary second premolars. The mean amounts and the monthly rates of first molar distalization were similar in both groups. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:336-42)

Thermal/mechanical simulation and laboratory fatigue testing of an alternative yttria tetragonal zirconia polycrystal core-veneer all-ceramic layered crown design

This study evaluated the stress levels at the core layer and the veneer layer of zirconia crowns (comprising an alternative core design vs. a standard core design) under mechanical/thermal simulation, and subjected simulated models to laboratory mouth-motion fatigue. The dimensions of a mandibular first molar were imported into computer-aided design (CAD) software and a tooth preparation was modeled. A crown was designed using the space between the original tooth and the prepared tooth. The alternative core presented an additional lingual shoulder that lowered the veneer bulk of the cusps. Finite element analyses evaluated the residual maximum principal stresses fields at the core and veneer of both designs under loading and when cooled from 900 degrees C to 25 degrees C. Crowns were fabricated and mouth-motion fatigued, generating master Weibull curves and reliability data. Thermal modeling showed low residual stress fields throughout the bulk of the cusps for both groups. Mechanical simulation depicted a shift in stress levels to the core of the alternative design compared with the standard design. Significantly higher reliability was found for the alternative core. Regardless of the alternative configuration, thermal and mechanical computer simulations showed stress in the alternative core design comparable and higher to that of the standard configuration, respectively. Such a mechanical scenario probably led to the higher reliability of the alternative design under fatigue.

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.