Background/Aims Dental trauma is the cause of several consequences to the injured tooth. However, the stresses and strains at adjacent teeth non‐directly impacted as a possible cause of sequelae are still unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the stress distribution in incisors adjacent to an upper central incisor when it suffers a frontal impact in order to identify a potential explanation for sequelae in non‐traumatized teeth. Materials and Methods A three‐dimensional (3D) finite element model of the maxillary central incisors, lateral incisors and canines was created from a cone‐beam scan of a patient with normal occlusion. Non‐linear dynamic impact analysis was performed, simulating the right central incisor being impacted by a steel ball with a velocity of 10 m/s. A functional chewing load (100 N) on the palatal surface of the central incisor was simulated for comparison. Displacements, strains and modified von Mises stresses were calculated for the adjacent teeth. Results During impact on the central incisor, the adjacent teeth showed root displacement. Considerable stress concentrations were observed on the palatal surfaces, proximal and labial surfaces of teeth adjacent to the traumatized incisor. Stresses in the adjacent teeth were higher than stresses calculated during functional biting. Compressive stresses were concentrated at the proximal areas of the adjacent incisors. High levels of deformation were found in the root dentin of adjacent teeth during the traumatic event. Conclusions A frontal impact on an anterior tooth generated stresses at the roots of adjacent teeth. These stresses may play a role in clinically observed sequelae of teeth adjacent to traumatized teeth.

This research consisted of a quantitative assessment, and aimed to measure the possible discrepancies between the maxillomandibular positions for centric relation (CR) and maximum intercuspation (MI), using computed tomography volumetric cone beam (cone beam method). The sample of the study consisted of 10 asymptomatic young adult patients divided into two types of standard occlusion: normal occlusion and Angle Class I occlusion. In order to obtain the centric relation, a JIG device and mandible manipulation were used to deprogram the habitual conditions of the jaw. The evaluations were conducted in both frontal and lateral tomographic images, showing the condyle/articular fossa relation. The images were processed in the software included in the NewTom 3G device (QR NNT software version 2.00), and 8 tomographic images were obtained per patient, four laterally and four frontally exhibiting the TMA’s (in CR and MI, on both sides, right and left). By means of tools included in another software, linear and angular measurements were performed and statistically analyzed by student t test. According to the methodology and the analysis performed in asymptomatic patients, it was not possible to detect statistically significant differences between the positions of centric relation and maximum intercuspation. However, the resources of cone beam tomography are of extreme relevance to the completion of further studies that use heterogeneous groups of samples in order to compare the results.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficiency of compensatory orthodontic treatment of patients with mild Class III malocclusion with two preadjusted bracket systems. Method: Fifty-six matched patients consecutively treated for mild Class III malocclusion through compensatory dentoalveolar movements were retrospectively evaluated after analysis of orthodontic records. The sample was divided into two groups according to the brackets used: Group 1 = non-Class III compensated preadjusted brackets, Roth prescription (n = 28); Group 2 = compensated Class III preadjusted brackets, Capelozza III prescription (n = 28). Cephalometric analysis, number of appointments and missed appointments, months using Class III elastics, and bond/band failures were considered. Treatment time, Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index at the beginning (PAR T1) and end of treatment (PAR T2) were used to calculate treatment efficiency. Comparison was performed using a MANOVA at p< 0.05. Results: Missed appointments, bond or band failures, number of months using the Class III intermaxillary elastics, and cephalometric measurements showed no statistically significant difference (p> 0.05) between groups. Patients treated with Roth brackets had a treatment time 7 months longer (p= 0.01). Significant improvement in the patient’s occlusion (PAR T2-T1) was observed for both groups without difference (p= 0.22). Conclusions: Orthodontic brackets designed for compensation of mild Class III malocclusions appear to be more efficient than non-compensated straight-wire prescription brackets. Treatment time for Class III patients treated with brackets designed for compensation was shorter than with Roth prescription and no difference in the quality of the occlusal outcome was observed. A prospective randomized study is suggested to provide a deeper look into this subject.