BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of casein phosphopeptide amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) and CPP-ACP with fluoride (CPP-ACP-F) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded with two different adhesive systems.MethodsOne hundred twenty-six human premolar teeth were selected. One hundred twenty teeth were used for SBS testing, and six teeth were used for scanning electron microscope (SEM) examination. One hundred twenty premolars were divided into mainly three groups: CPP-ACP (group A), CPP-ACP-F (group B), and control group (group C). Each group was sub-divided into two groups according to the bonding adhesive, light cure (groups A1, B1, and C1) and chemical cure (groups A2, B2, and C2). The teeth were pre-treated with the group-specified preventive agent 1 h/day for five consecutive days. Standard edgewise brackets were bonded with the respective adhesives. SBS evaluation was done with the universal testing machine. After debonding, all the teeth were scored for adhesive remaining on the buccal surface, in accordance to adhesive remnant index, under a stereomicroscope. The acid-etched enamel surfaces were observed under SEM after treatment with CPP-ACP, CPP-ACP-F, and artificial saliva.ResultIn light-cure adhesive group, CPP-ACP-F (B1) showed superior results compared to the control group (C1), whereas the CPP-ACP group (A1) showed lower mean SBS than the control group (C1). Both these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). In chemical-cure adhesive group, control group C2 showed significantly superior results (p < 0.05) compared to group A2 and group B2. The results of two-way ANOVA showed highly significant difference due to adhesive types (p < 0.01), whereas enamel pre-treatment showed non-significant difference (p > 0.01).ConclusionThe SBS of the orthodontic brackets was non-significantly affected when the brackets were cured with light-cure bonding system and treated with either CPP-ACP or CPP-ACP-F, whereas with chemical-cure adhesive, decreased bond strength was seen, which was within the clinically acceptable limits.

BackgroundAn important constituent of an orthodontic appliance is orthodontic brackets. It is either the bracket or the archwire that slides through the bracket slot, during sliding mechanics. Overcoming the friction between the two surfaces demands an important consideration in an appliance design. The present study investigated the surface roughness of four different commercially available stainless steel brackets.MethodsAll tests were carried out to analyse quantitatively the morphological surface of the bracket slot floor with the help of scanning electron microscope (SEM) machine and to qualitatively analyse the average surface roughness (Sa) of the bracket slot floor with the help of a three-dimensional (3D) non-contact optical surface profilometer machine.ResultsThe SEM microphotographs were evaluated with the help of visual analogue scale, the surface roughness for group A = 0—very rough surface, group C = 1—rough surface, group B = 2—smooth surface, and group D = 3—very smooth surface. Surface roughness evaluation with the 3D non-contact optical surface profilometer machine was highest for group A, followed by group C, group B and group D. Groups B and D provided smooth surface roughness; however, group D had the very smooth surface with values 0.74 and 0.75 for mesial and distal slots, respectively.ConclusionsEvaluation of surface roughness of the bracket slot floor with both SEM and profilometer machine led to the conclusion that the average surface roughness was highest for group A, followed by group C, group B and group D.

This article reports the successful use of mini-screws in the maxilla to treat two patients of age 21-year and 17-year-old girls. Both the patients had a skeletal Class II malocclusion with protrusive maxillary teeth and angels Class II mal-occlusion. Temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in the posterior dental region between maxillary second premolar and maxillary first molar teeth on both sides were used as anchorage for the retraction and intrusion of her maxillary anterior teeth. Those appliances, combined with a compensatory curved maxillary archwire, eliminated spacing, deep bite, forwardly placed and proclined upper front teeth and the protrusive profile, corrected the molar relationship from Class II to Class I. With no extra TADs in the anterior region for intrusion, the treatment was workable and simple. The patient received a satisfactory occlusion and an attractive smile. This technique requires minimal compliance and is particularly useful for correcting Class II patients with protrusive maxillary front teeth and dental deep bite.

A proposal to formulate an orthodontic index specific for the Indian Board of Orthodontics (IBO) to determine the acceptability and degree of difficulty of a cases submitted for the phase III examination was discussed at the College of Diplomates meet (CDIBO). To ascertain the degree of difficulty of a case is very subjective; therefore, the need to quantify the complexity of a case in a standard format is required. To develop a Discrepancy Index for the IBO, 20 Dental and Cephalometric components of a malocclusion and 20 intraoral frontal photographs would have to be evaluated and a weightage score for each component would be assigned. Components such as upper and lower anterior proclination, commonly seen in our Asian population which have been omitted in the commonly used indices such as PAR (Peer Assessment Review) IOTN (Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need) and the ICON (Index of Complexity,Outcome and Need) have been included. The proposed IBO Index would add uniformity and standardization in assessing the degree of difficulty and also the degree of improvement of a case, which would be a beneficial tool for a fair evaluation.

Early orthopedic intervention can be effective in normalizing skeletal class III malocclusions if patients are treated in a timely manner. There are a large number of skeletal class III patients that either decline or cannot afford surgical treatment. The only alternative is 'Orthodontic camouflage' through comprehensive treatment with fixed appliances. The ultimate judgment as to whether orthodontic treatment alone, to camouflage a skeletal problem, would be an acceptable result, or whether orthognathic surgery to correct the jaw discrepancy would be required, must be made by the patient and parents. Class III camouflage logically would be the reverse of class II camouflage, based on retracting the lower incisors, advancing the upper incisors, and surgically reducing the prominence of the chin, in addition, rotating the mandible downward and backward, when the chin is prominent, can be considered a form of camouflage. Even though timing of orthodontic treatment has always been somewhat controversial, it is an agreement in the literature that prognosis is still obscure until growth is completed. A cephalometric analysis is needed to quantitatively record the severity of the class III malocclusion and to determine the underlying cause of the deformity. Although it is agreed that camouflage line of treatment is not an ideal line of treatment, but it serves its purpose very well in mild range of skeletal dysplasia's and in conditions where patient is either unwilling for orthognathic surgery or in cases were surgery is contraindicated.