Maxillary sinus floor extension and posterior tooth inclination in adolescent patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with maxillary first molar extractions

INTRODUCTION Our objective was to investigate potential associations between maxillary sinus floor extension and inclination of maxillary second premolars and second molars in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion whose orthodontic treatment included maxillary first molar extractions. METHODS The records of 37 patients (18 boys, 19 girls; mean age, 13.2 years; SD, 1.62 years) treated between 1998 and 2004 by 1 orthodontist with full Begg appliances were used in this study. Inclusion criteria were white patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, sagittal overjet of ≥4 mm, treatment plan including extraction of the maxillary first permanent molars, no missing teeth, and no agenesis. Maxillary posterior tooth inclination and lower maxillary sinus area in relation to the palatal plane were measured on lateral cephalograms at 3 time points: at the start and end of treatment, and on average 2.5 years posttreatment. Data were analyzed for the second premolar and second molar inclinations by using mixed linear models. RESULTS The analysis showed that the second molar inclination angle decreased by 7° after orthodontic treatment, compared with pretreatment values, and by 11.5° at the latest follow-up, compared with pretreatment. There was evidence that maxillary sinus volume was negatively correlated with second molar inclination angle; the greater the volume, the smaller the inclination angle. For premolars, inclination increased by 15.4° after orthodontic treatment compared with pretreatment, and by 8.1° at the latest follow-up compared with baseline. The volume of the maxillary sinus was not associated with premolar inclination. CONCLUSIONS We found evidence of an association between maxillary second molar inclination and surface area of the lower sinus in patients treated with maxillary first molar extractions. Clinicians who undertake such an extraction scheme in Class II patients should be aware of this potential association and consider appropriate biomechanics to control root uprighting.

Development of labial gingival recessions in orthodontically treated patients

INTRODUCTION Our aim was to assess the prevalence of gingival recessions in patients before, immediately after, and 2 and 5 years after orthodontic treatment. METHODS Labial gingival recessions in all teeth were scored (yes or no) by 2 raters on initial, end-of-treatment, and posttreatment (2 and 5 years) plaster models of 302 orthodontic patients (38.7% male; 61.3% female) selected from a posttreatment archive. Their mean ages were 13.6 years (SD, 3.6; range, 9.5-32.7 years) at the initial assessment, 16.2 years (SD, 3.5; range, 11.7-35.1 years) at the end of treatment, 18.6 years (SD, 3.6; range, 13.7-37.2 years) at 2 years posttreatment, and 21.6 (SD, 3.5; range, 16.6-40.2 years) at 5 years posttreatment. A recession was noted (scored "yes") if the labial cementoenamel junction was exposed. All patients had a fixed retainer bonded to either the mandibular canines only (type I) or all 6 mandibular front teeth (type II). RESULTS There was a continuous increase in gingival recessions after treatment from 7% at end of treatment to 20% at 2 years posttreatment and to 38% at 5 years posttreatment. Patients less than 16 years of age at the end of treatment were less likely to develop recessions than patients more than 16 years at the end of treatment (P = 0.013). The prevalence of recessions was not associated with sex (P = 0.462) or extraction treatment (P = 0.32). The type of fixed retainer did not influence the development of recessions in the mandibular front region (P = 0.231). CONCLUSIONS The prevalence of gingival recessions steadily increases after orthodontic treatment. The recessions are more prevalent in older than in younger patients. No variable, except for age at the end of treatment, seems to be associated with the development of gingival recessions.

Class II treatment by extraction of maxillary first molars or Herbst appliance: dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects in comparison

AIM To compare dentoskeletal and soft tissue treatment effects of two alternative Class II division 1 treatment modalities (maxillary first permanent molar extraction versus Herbst appliance). METHODS One-hundred-fifty-four Class II division 1 patients that had either been treated with extractions of the upper first molars and a lightwire multibracket (MB) appliance (n = 79; 38 girls, 41 boys) or non-extraction by means of a Herbst-MB appliance (n = 75; 35 girls, 40 boys). The groups were matched on age and sex. The average age at the start of treatment was 12.7 years for the extraction and for 13.0 years for the Herbst group. Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalograms were retrospectively analyzed using a standard cephalometric analysis and the sagittal occlusal analysis according to Pancherz. RESULTS The SNA decrease was 1.10° (p = 0.001) more pronounced in the extraction group, the SNB angle increased 1.49° more in the Herbst group (p = 0.000). In the extraction group, a decrease in SNB angle (0.49°) was observed. The soft tissue profile convexity (N-Sn-Pog) decreased in both groups, which was 0.78° more (n. s.) pronounced in the Herbst group. The nasolabial angle increased significantly more (+ 2.33°, p = 0.025) in the extraction group. The mechanism of overjet correction in the extraction group was predominantly dental (65% dental and 35% skeletal changes), while in the Herbst group it was predominantly skeletal (58% skeletal and 42% dental changes) in origin. CONCLUSION Both treatment methods were successful and led to a correction of the Class II division 1 malocclusion. Whereas for upper first molar extraction treatment more dental and maxillary effects can be expected, in case of Herbst treatment skeletal and mandibular effects prevail.

Quantitative comparison of 3 enamel-stripping devices in vitro: how precisely can we strip teeth?

INTRODUCTION In this in-vitro study, we aimed to investigate the predictability of the expected amount of stripping using 3 common stripping devices on premolars. METHODS One hundred eighty extracted premolars were mounted and aligned in silicone. Tooth mobility was tested with Periotest (Medizintechnik Gulden, Modautal, Germany) (8.3 ± 2.8 units). The selected methods for interproximal enamel reduction were hand-pulled strips (Horico, Hapf Ringleb & Company, Berlin, Germany), oscillating segmental disks (O-drive-OD 30; KaVo Dental, Biberach, Germany), and motor-driven abrasive strips (Orthofile; SDC Switzerland, Lugano-Grancia, Switzerland). With each device, the operator intended to strip 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mm on the mesial side of 15 teeth. The teeth were scanned before and after stripping with a 3-dimensional laser scanner. Superposition and measurement of stripped enamel on the most mesial point of the tooth were conducted with Viewbox software (dHal Software, Kifissia, Greece). The Wilcoxon signed rank test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were applied; statistical significance was set at alpha ≤ 0.05. RESULTS Large variations between the intended and the actual amounts of stripped enamel, and between stripping procedures, were observed. Significant differences were found at 0.1 mm of intended stripping (P ≤ 0.05) for the hand-pulled method and at 0.4 mm of intended stripping (P ≤ 0.001 to P = 0.05) for all methods. For all scenarios of enamel reduction, the actual amount of stripping was less than the predetermined and expected amount of stripping. The Kruskal-Wallis analysis showed no significant differences between the 3 methods. CONCLUSIONS There were variations in the stripped amounts of enamel, and the stripping technique did not appear to be a significant predictor of the actual amount of enamel reduction. In most cases, actual stripping was less than the intended amount of enamel reduction.

Bisphenol-A and residual monomer leaching from orthodontic adhesive resins and polycarbonate brackets: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION The objective of this systematic review was to assess the short- and long-term release of components of orthodontic adhesives and polycarbonate brackets in the oral environment. METHODS Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The following electronic databases with no language and publication date restrictions were searched: MEDLINE (via Ovid and PubMed), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, and CENTRAL. Unpublished literature was searched on ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, and Pro-Quest Dissertation Abstracts and Thesis database. The reference lists of all eligible studies were checked for additional studies. Two review authors performed data extraction independently and in duplicate using data collection forms. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or the involvement of an arbiter. RESULTS No randomized controlled trial was identified. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, observational studies were included. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. All were observational studies conducted in vivo or in vitro. The bisphenol-A release from orthodontic bonding resins was found to be between 0.85 and 20.88 ng per milliliter in vivo, and from traces to 65.67 ppm in vitro. Polycarbonate brackets released amounts of 22.24 μg per gram in ethanol solution and 697 μg per gram after 40 months in water. Bis-GMA and TEGDMA leaching in vitro reached levels of 64 and 174 mg per 10 μL, respectively. Because of the heterogeneity in methodologies and reporting, only qualitative synthesis was performed. CONCLUSIONS The available evidence on this topic derived from observational in-vivo and in-vitro studies that represent a moderate level of evidence. The variety of setups and the different units allied to the diversity of reporting among studies did not allow calculation of pooled estimates.