Objectives
To assess the effectiveness of bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and whether it was enhanced when preceded by maxillary expansion.
Materials and Methods
The sample consisted of 28 growing children (9–13 years old) with UCLP and Class III malocclusion. They were divided into two equal groups. In group I, patients were treated with BAMP not preceded by maxillary expansion. In group II, patients were treated with BAMP preceded by maxillary expansion. To assess treatment changes in three dimensions, Cone-beam computed tomography images were taken 1 week after surgical placement of the miniplates (T1) and after 9 months of treatment (T2).
Results
BAMP produced forward movement of the maxilla in both groups (3.17 mm) and (3.37 mm) respectively, without significant differences between the two groups except for clockwise rotation of the palatal plane in group I (1.60).
Conclusions
BAMP is an effective treatment modality for correcting midface deficiency in patients with UCLP whether or not maxillary expansion was carried out.
ObjectiveThe objective of this two-arm parallel trial was to compare the type of tooth movement during en masse retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth using labial versus lingual biocreative therapy.MethodsTwenty-eight subjects were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to either the labial or lingual group. En masse anterior retraction was performed using labial biocreative therapy in group A and lingual biocreative therapy in group B. Cone beam computed tomography scans were taken before and after retraction and the primary outcome was the type of tooth movement during anterior retraction. Data were analyzed using paired t-tests for comparisons within each group and independent-sample t-test for comparison of the mean treatment changes between the two groups.ResultsSignificant differences were found between the two groups in relation to the type of tooth movement (labiolingual inclination of the central incisor; mean difference, 5.85 ± 1.85°). The canine showed significant distal tipping in the lingual group (mean difference, 6.98 ± 1.25°). The canine was significantly more intruded in the lingual group (mean difference, 1.67 ± 0.49 mm). Good anchorage control and significant soft tissue changes occurred in both groups. No serious adverse effects were detected.ConclusionsWith a 10-mm retraction hook, the labial biocreative technique with the reverse curve overlay provided anterior retraction with good torque control, while in the lingual group, anterior retraction occurred with controlled tipping movement with significant distal tipping and intrusion of the canine (trial registration: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT03239275]).
BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to determine differences in cortical bone thickness among subjects with different vertical facial dimensions using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).MethodsFrom 114 pre-treatment CBCT scans, 48 scans were selected to be included in the study. CBCT-synthesized lateral cephalograms were used to categorize subjects into three groups based on their vertical skeletal pattern. Cortical bone thickness (CBT) at two vertical levels (4 and 7 mm) from the alveolar crest were measured in the entire tooth-bearing region in the maxilla and mandible.ResultsSignificant group differences were detected with high-angle subjects having significantly narrower inter-radicular CBT at some sites as compared to average- and low-angle subjects.ConclusionsInter-radicular cortical bone is thinner in high-angle than in average- or low-angle subjects in few selected sites at the vertical height in which mini-implants are commonly inserted for orthodontic anchorage.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.