Objectives: To investigate the hypothesis that there is difference in the treatment outcomes of milder skeletal Class III malocclusion between facemask and facemask in combination with a miniscrew in growing patients. Materials and Methods: Patients were randomly divided into two groups. In one group, the patients were treated with facemask therapy (FM group: 12 males, eight females, average age: 10 years, 5 months ± 1 year, 8 months). In the other group, patients were treated with facemask therapy along with a miniscrew (FM+MS group: 12 males, seven females, average age: 11 years, 1 month ± 1 year, 3 months). A lingual arch with hooks was fixed to the maxillary arch in both groups and a protractive force of 500 g was applied from the facemask to the hooks. The patients were instructed to use the facemask for 12 hours per day. In the FM+MS group, a miniscrew was inserted into the palate and fixed to the lingual arch. Results: Mobility and loosening of the miniscrew were not observed during treatment. Lateral cephalometric analysis showed that SNA, SN-ANS, and ANB values were significantly increased in the FM+MS group compared with those for the FM group (SNA, 1.1° SN-ANS, 1.3° ANB, 0.8°). Increase in proclination of maxillary incisors was significantly greater in the FM group than in the FM+MS group (U1-SN, 5.0°). Conclusions: During treatment of milder skeletal Class III malocclusion, facemask therapy along with a miniscrew exhibits fewer negative side effects and delivers orthopedic forces more efficiently to the maxillary complex than facemask therapy alone.

Several recent prospective clinical trials have investigated the effect of supplementary vibration applied with fixed appliances in an attempt to accelerate tooth movement and shorten the duration of orthodontic treatment. Among them, some studies reported an increase in the rate of tooth movement, but others did not. This technique is still controversial, and the underlying cellular and molecular mechanisms remain unclear. In the present study, we developed a new vibration device for a tooth movement model in rats, and investigated the efficacy and safety of the device when used with fixed appliances. The most effective level of supplementary vibration to accelerate tooth movement stimulated by a continuous static force was 3 gf at 70 Hz for 3 minutes once a week. Furthermore, at this optimum-magnitude, high-frequency vibration could synergistically enhance osteoclastogenesis and osteoclast function via NF-κB activation, leading to alveolar bone resorption and finally, accelerated tooth movement, but only when a static force was continuously applied to the teeth. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the mechanism by which optimum-magnitude high-frequency vibration accelerates tooth movement, and may lead to novel approaches for the safe and effective treatment of malocclusion.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of vibration on orthodontic tooth movement and safety assessment based on our previous basic research in animal experiments. A double-blind prospective randomized controlled trial using split-mouth design was conducted in patients with malocclusion. The left and right sides of maxillary arch were randomly assigned to vibration (TM + V) and non-vibration (TM) groups. After leveling, vibrations (5.2 ± 0.5 g-forces (gf), 102.2 ± 2.6 Hertz (Hz)) were supplementary applied to the canine retracted with 100 gf in TM + V group for 3 min at the monthly visit under double-blind fashion, and the canine on the other side without vibration was used as TM group. The amount of tooth movement was measured blindly using a constructed three-dimensional dentition model. The amount of canine movement per visit was 0.89 ± 0.55 mm in TM group (n = 23) and 1.21 ± 0.60 mm in TM + V group (n = 23), respectively. There was no significant difference of pain and discomfort, and root resorption between the two groups. This study indicates that static orthodontic force with supplementary vibration significantly accelerated tooth movement in canine retraction and reduced the number of visits without causing side effects.

The present article reports the successful non-extraction orthodontic treatment using miniscrew anchorage in a patient who presented with maxillary left central incisor loss and unstable jaw movements. The chief complaints of the 23-year-old female patient were her protruding teeth and crowding of the mandibular anterior segment. The patient lost her maxillary left central incisor as a result of a traumatic injury during childhood. However, the crown was saved and attached to the adjacent teeth. The patient was diagnosed with a skeletal Class III and Angle Class III dental malocclusion. The jaw movements determined by a 6 degrees of freedom jaw movement recording system were unstable and irregular. Miniscrew anchorage was applied for distalisation of the maxillary right dentition and the mandibular dentition during non-extraction treatment. The maxillary left dentition was mesialised using miniscrew anchorage to close the space as a result of the lost maxillary left central incisor. After an active treatment duration of 36 months, the patient achieved a Class II molar relationship on the left side, a Class I on the right side, an optimal overjet and overbite, and a pleasing facial profile. Despite the asymmetric molar relationships, functionally stable and smooth jaw movements were established. The skeletal, occlusal and functional stability remained satisfactory after a 2-year retention period. In conclusion, miniscrew anchorage was valuable in supporting asymmetric tooth movement during non-extraction appliance treatment in a patient who presented with traumatic unilateral tooth loss.