Oculo-facio-cardio-dental syndrome is a very rare condition. So far, only nine cases have been documented. We report on three additional female patients representing the same entity. The clinical findings were: congenital cataract, microphthalmia/microcornea, secondary glaucoma, vision impairment, ptosis, long narrow face, high nasal bridge, broad nasal tip with separated cartilages, long philtrum, cleft palate, atrial septal defect, ventricular septal defect, and skeletal anomalies. The following dental abnormalities were found: radiculomegaly, delayed dentition, oligodontia, root dilacerations (extension), and malocclusion. For the first time, fusion of teeth and hyperdontia of permanent upper teeth were seen. In addition, structural and morphological dental changes were noted. These findings expand the clinical spectrum of the syndrome.

There are many publications in the literature focusing on clinical, radiological and surgical aspects of the treatment of mesiodentes. However, the etiology of this dental anomaly remains widely unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate etiologic factors for mesiodentes in a collective comprising 30 patients with a total of 45 mesiodentes. Thirty-one percent of the patients showed a familial disposition, pointing to inheritance as a key factor in the development of mesiodentes. Our results further support the hypothesis of related etiologic factors for several dental and craniofacial anomalies, such as hyperdontia, hypodontia and cleft lip and palate. Finally, we report the gemination of a deciduous incisor on the same side as a mesiodens. We also found differences in the mesiodistal width of central incisors depending on unilateral or bilateral occurrence of mesiodentes. Both these findings support the dichotomy theory of the split in the tooth bud inducing the development of mesiodentes, a theory we favor over that of local hyperactivity of the dental lamina.

The aim of this study was to examine to what extent excess space must be taken into consideration as an etiological factor in upper canine impaction with special attention paid to the role of the adjacent laterals. To clarify this question the pre- and post-treatment models of 63 patients with a total of 84 impacted cuspids were measured and the cephalograms of 116 patients having 144 impacted cuspids were analyzed. The results of this study revealed: 84.5% of the cuspids were palatally impacted while 15.5% were labially impacted. An arch deficiency was found in only 18% of the palatally impacted cuspids, whereas there was an arch-length deficiency in 46% of the buccally impacted. In 35% of the cases there was a correlation between peg shaped laterals and palatal impaction, however, such was not present in the patients with vestibular retention. Finally the cephalometric data revealed horizontal growth characteristics in 80% of the palatally impacted canines as opposed to 23% in those labially impacted.

The aim of this study was to analyze the dynamic development of Class II, Division 2 malocclusion with reference to the untreated patients from the Belfast Growth Study. As a second step, the influences of premolar extraction in all 4 quadrants and of maxillary second molar extraction in the upper jaw in Class II/2 patients were examined, focusing on the cephalometric variables in comparison to those of the untreated patients from the Belfast study. The longitudinal cephalometric values of 20 patients in each group were compared. In addition, the possibility of third molar eruption was evaluated in the extraction patients from the panoramic radiographs. The overbite based on study models at the beginning and end of treatment was calculated. Furthermore, renewed spacing after premolar extraction was assessed. The results derived from cephalometric analysis demonstrated that profile flattening was also observed in untreated Class II/2 patients during the growth period. Comparison of these data with those obtained from the extraction groups revealed a significantly marked recession of the upper lip after premolar extraction. In contrast, only slightly increased flattening after maxillary second molar extraction was observed compared with the untreated patients of the control group. Whereas the interincisal angle was reduced to a value approximating that of untreated Class I patients after maxillary second molar extraction, only a small decrease was recorded after premolar extraction. From our point of view, the claim that premolar extraction facilitates third molar eruption should be seen in an extremely critical light and should not contribute to the decision in favor of extraction. In addition, there is a problem of renewed spacing in the extraction area after premolar extraction.