No abstract

Maxillary midline diastema is one of the most frequently encountered esthetic problems in mixed and permanent dentition. Several causes have been attributed to the midline diastema, including developmental, pathologic or iatrogenic. It can also be seen as a transient malocclusion in which case any intervention is contraindicated. A wide range of possible treatments like restorative procedures, composite build up, surgeries (frenectomies) can be done, based on etiology. Thus, correct diagnosis of etiology and specific early intervention plays a major role in deciding the treatment plan.Class I malocclusion is one of the most common problems around the globe affecting around one-third of the patients who come for orthodontic treatment. This case report evaluates the management of Class I malocclusion with spaced dentition and a tongue thrusting habit in a male patient with the help of a single phase appliance therapy without the need for 2 phase correction, i.e, 1st the correction of tongue thrusting with the help of a habit breaking appliance followed by Fixed appliance therapy with braces. This modality not only saves time, but also promotes faster habit breaking as intervention is done in the earlier stages of life when the patient is still growing. Severe maxillar incisor proclination with a convex Orthognthic facial profile, increased mandibular plane angle, incompetent lips and increased overjet was observed on clinical and cephalometric analysis. Orthodontic treatment resulted in a marked improvement of the patient’s smile and a remarkable increase in self-confidence and quality of life. The profile changes and treatment results were demonstrated with proper case selection and good patient cooperation with fixed appliance therapy.

Introduction: Today, modern surgical and regenerative techniques with implant immediately placed into the prepared socket, predictable gap repair with bone substitutes and soft tissue grafts, have helped to eliminate concerns about bone deficiencies and allowed implant placement according to prosthodontic needs. Materials and Methods: The present in vivo study was designed to evaluate and compare the implant healing after immediate implant placement with or without bone graft and implant healing after delayed implant placement with or without bone graft. Crestal bone levels were compared in both the groups at preoperatively and postoperatively on immediate postoperatively, at 3rd month, and at 6th month. Results: Immediate implant group has more crestal bone level reduction at 3rd and 6th months as compared to the delayed implant group. Immediate implant with bone graft group has insignificant crestal bone level reduction at 3rd and 6th months as compared to immediate implant without bone graft group. Delayed implant with bone graft group has insignificant crestal bone level reduction at 3rd and 6th months as compared to delayed implant without bone graft group. Conclusion: It was concluded from this study that clinical and radiographical bone healing in the delayed implant group with or without bone graft (Group Y) appears to be better than the immediate dental implant group with or without bone graft (Group X).

No abstract