Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Directory: AAO Officers and Organizations Publication date: May 2019 Source: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 155, Issue 5 Author(s):

Leena Peck, 1945-2019 Publication date: May 2019 Source: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 155, Issue 5 Author(s): Sheldon Peck

May 2019:155(5) Publication date: May 2019 Source: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 155, Issue 5 Author(s): Allen H. Moffitt

Searching the literature for studies for a systematic review. Part 4: Searching with the use of text words Publication date: May 2019 Source: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 155, Issue 5 Author(s): Anne Littlewood, Dimitrios Kloukos

Got milk? Publication date: May 2019 Source: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 155, Issue 5 Author(s): Laurance Jerrold

Precision of 3D-printed splints with different dental model offsets Publication date: May 2019 Source: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 155, Issue 5 Author(s): Niansong Ye, Tingting Wu, Ting Dong, Lingjun Yuan, Bing Fang, Luoguo Xia Introduction The purpose of this study was to assess the precision of 3D-printed splints generated from different dental model offsets. Methods Ten maxillary models were offset by given distances (0.05 mm, 0.1 mm, and 0.2 mm). Digital splints were created by means of the boolean operation. The physical splints were fabricated by means of digital light-processing (DLP) rapid prototyping technologies. A layer of impression material, which could be weighed by means of an electronic analytical balance, was placed in the airspace between the splint and the teeth. We also calculated the shell-to-shell deviations by measuring the 3-dimensional (3D) euclidean distances between the surface points of the scanned splints and the original digital splint and evaluating the results with color-mapping methods. Results There was a statistically significant difference in the amounts of impression material remaining in the airspace between the 0.0-mm group and the 0.05-mm, 0.1-mm, and 0.2-mm groups (P < 0.05), between the 0.05-mm and the 0.1-mm and 0.2-mm groups (P < 0.05), and between the 0.0-mm group and the 0.05-mm, 0.1-mm, and 0.2-mm groups (P < 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in shell-to-shell deviations between the 0.05-mm and the 0.1-mm and 0.2-mm groups (P < 0.05). Conclusions 3D-printed splints generated from offset dental models (offset 0.05 mm, 0.1 mm, and 0.2 mm) can fit better on the teeth than splints from no-offset dental models. An offset of 0.1 mm is the best choice of parameter for generating the splint.

Maxillary molar mesialization with the use of palatal mini-implants for direct anchorage in an adolescent patient Publication date: May 2019 Source: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 155, Issue 5 Author(s): Benedict Wilmes, Sivabalan Vasudavan, Dieter Drescher A unique clinical challenge presents when dealing with a compromised first permanent molar. A compelling treatment option for consideration is the removal of a nonrestorable first permanent molar, with the subsequent "replacement" through controlled mesial tooth movement of viable second and third molars. To reinforce the anchorage support associated with such a planned movement, indirect or direct implant-supported mechanics may be used. With the use of direct anchorage, orthodontic brackets are not required and space closure can be commenced immediately. In this article, we report the clinical procedure and design of direct-anchorage mechanics used for the successful closure of a maxillary first permanent molar space with the use of an implant-supported appliance (Mesialslider). Treatment was completed in just under 12 months, with successful mesial movement of the maxillary second and third molars without the need for the bonding of orthodontic brackets on the anterior dentition. The result was determined to be stable over a 3-year period.

Hemimandibular hyperplasia treated with orthognathic surgery and mandibular body osteotomy Publication date: May 2019 Source: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 155, Issue 5 Author(s): Han-Lim Kim, Young-Jun Choi, Hyewon Kim Surgical treatment of facial asymmetry usually involves 2-jaw orthognathic surgery. But when the size of the mandible differs a great deal between the right and left sides, as in hemimandibular hyperplasia, additional contouring surgery is required. A 20-year-old woman presented with facial asymmetry, showing marked mandibular hyperplasia of the right side. She was treated with the use of 2-jaw surgery with mandibular body osteotomy in conjunction with orthodontic intrusion. Good esthetic outcome and functional occlusion were achieved.

A complex orthognathic surgical approach correcting a Class III malocclusion involving traumatic dental injuries and a maxilla fracture Publication date: May 2019 Source: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 155, Issue 5 Author(s): Renato Barcellos Rédua, Robson Almeida de Rezende, Carlos Eduardo de Almeida Ferreira, Márcio Rodrigues Bittencourt This case report describes a complex approach to orthodontic preparation for surgical treatment of a Class III facial skeletal deformity in a patient who suffered a unilateral maxilla fracture that also featured maxillary left central incisor avulsion, maxillary right central incisor extrusion, and maxillary right lateral luxation. A 12-mm negative overjet was formed by extraction of the maxillary right lateral incisor and closure of the residual space by retraction of the maxillary right central incisor, maxillary left lateral incisors, and maxillary right and left canines. Forward and impaction movement of the maxilla and retrusion and a counterclockwise turning movement of the mandible were then performed. Maxillary first premolars were reshaped to establish a maxillary canine shape, maxillary canines were reshaped to be maxillary lateral incisors, and a maxillary left lateral incisor received a central incisor crown, with a Class II molar relationship with good occlusion after 2 years of follow-up. This case was a great challenge that included complex multidisciplinary procedures, and the results indicated successful treatment of an orthodontic preparation for surgical treatment in a patient after maxillary fracture associated with dental trauma.

3D stereophotogrammetry versus traditional craniofacial anthropometry: Comparing measurements from the 3D facial norms database to Farkas's North American norms Publication date: May 2019 Source: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 155, Issue 5 Author(s): Seth M. Weinberg Introduction Datasets of soft-tissue craniofacial anthropometric norms collected with the use of different methods are available, but there is little understanding of how the measurements compare. Here we compare a set of standard facial measurements between 2 large datasets: the 3D Facial Norms (3DFN) dataset collected with the use of 3D stereophotogrammetry (n = 2454), and the Farkas craniofacial norms collected with the use of direct anthropometry (n = 2326). Methods A common set of 24 craniofacial linear distances were compared by computing standardized effect sizes (Cohen d) for each measurement to describe the overall direction and magnitude of the difference between the 2 datasets. Results Variables with higher mean d values (suggesting greater discrepancy across datasets) included measurements involving the ear landmark tragion, the landmark nasion, the width of nasolabial structures, the vermilion portion of the lips, and palpebral fissure length. Variables with lower mean d values included smaller midline measurements involving the lips and lower face and horizontal distance measures between the eyes. Eight measurements showed a significant negative correlation (P < 0.05) between Cohen d and age, indicating greater similarity across the 2 datasets as age increased. Conclusions There are considerable differences between the 3DFN and Farkas norms. In addition to the measurement methods, other factors accounting for discrepancies may include secular trends in craniofacial morphology or differences in ethnic composition.

Alexandros Sfakianakis
Anapafseos 5 . Agios Nikolaos
Crete.Greece.72100
2841026182

6948891480

alsfakia@gmail.com