Introduction: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of lasercision corticotomy for the acceleration of canine movement. Our secondary objectives were assessing the canine rotation, the rate of anchorage control, the level of pain, and the gingival index (GI). Methods: Twelve orthodontic patients (9 females and 3 males) referring to the School of Dentistry and one dental clinic from May 2019 to September 2019 participated in this split-mouth randomized clinical trial. The allocation of the test and control sides was performed by flipping a coin. The mean age of patients was 18.91±3.87 years (range 15-30 years). The treatment plan included maxillary first premolar extraction. Following the initial leveling and alignment phase, an initial impression was made. Corticotomy was carried out with the erbium, chromium-doped yttrium scandium gallium garnet (Er, Cr: YSGG) laser (3.5 W, 30 Hz, 40% air, 80% water) in one maxillary quadrant (the laser side). Canine retraction was immediately initiated following surgery using nickel-titanium closed-coil springs with 150 g force. The impression was repeated 1 month after the onset of retraction. The casts were scanned, and the distance between the canine cusp tip and the rugae line was measured to quantify the amount of anteroposterior canine movement. The molar anchorage control was also evaluated by measuring the distance between the mesial contact of the permanent first molar and the rugae line. Gingival health was evaluated using the GI. The modified McGill pain questionnaire was used to assess the level of patients' pain. Results: Lasercision corticotomy accelerated canine retraction with no adverse effect on gingival health. Anchorage loss in the posterior teeth and pain scores were not significantly different between the control and laser sides. Conclusion: Laser corticotomy can effectively accelerate canine retraction with no complications or discomfort for the patients.

Today's prevalence of obesity is dramatically increasing and a two-way interaction between higher body mass index (BMI) and oral health is described in scientific litterature. Accordingly, the present study was aimed to evaluate the relation of BMI and oral health indicators. In this cross-sectional study, 240 individuals according to their BMI were placed in the following experimental groups; underweight (BMI<18), normal weight (18≤BMI≤24.9), overweight (25≤BMI≤29.9) and obese (30≤BMI). Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP) and decayed, missed and filled teeth (DMFT) were obtained. Data was analyzed by SPSS 26 using descriptive tests and one-way ANOVA at the level of 0.05. The mean age and sex distribution of participants of experimental groups had no significant difference (p>0.05). GI and BOP were significantly lower in normal weight persons than individuals with high BMI (p<0.05). DMFT, the number of decayed, missed and filled teeth was approximately similar in all experimental groups (p>0.05). Pearson correlation coefficient showed a positive significant relation between GI as well as BOP with BMI (p=0.000). Based on the results achieved by the present study, although periodontal health status of overweight and obese individuals was significantly compromised compared to normal weight persons, the dental health status was not affected by BMI.

Background and Aim: Intraosseous implants can be placed using three different techniques: immediate, early, and delayed. The aim of this study was to compare the changes in the marginal bone level around implants after immediate and delayed implant placement. Materials and Methods:In the present prospective cohort study, 26 implants were placed in 26 patients divided into two groups. In group 1, 13 implants were placed immediately, while in group 2, 13 implants were placed with a delay of more than 4 months after tooth extraction. The marginal bone level was measured on periapical radiographs taken using the parallel technique at implant placement time and 6 and 12 months after implantation. The measurements were made using a digital caliper with an accuracy of 0.01 mm, and the data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Mauchly's sphericity test. The statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Results: The mean distances between the crestal bone and the implant shoulder in group 1 were 1.12 mm, 1.48 mm, and 1.77 mm at implant placement time and 6 and 12 months postoperatively, respectively. In group 2, these distances were 1.26 mm, 1.46 mm, and 1.71 mm, respectively. There were no significant differences in marginal bone resorption between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion:There was no significant difference in crestal bone loss around implants placed with immediate and delayed techniques.