No abstract

Objectives To identify changes in orthodontic management strategies in patients with hypodontia seen in 2000, 2010, and 2017/2018 (during a 1-year period). Materials and Methods An assessment of the panoramic radiographs of 3701 patients from a Western Australian private practice identified 276 individuals demonstrating hypodontia. The location of missing teeth, age, sex, type of malocclusion, and the management strategies (space closure or opening) for each patient were noted. Results Most hypodontia involved agenesis of three or fewer teeth (90%). Maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular second premolars were the most commonly missing teeth. Female preponderance was noted. When considering treatment, the odds ratio for orthodontic space opening and prosthetic replacement in 2000 was 3.266 (P value = 7e-04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.464–4.633) compared with patients seen in 2010 and 1.632 (P value = 7e-04; 95% CI, 0.811–2.434) compared with patients in 2017/2018. For patients demonstrating bilateral absence of maxillary lateral incisors, the odds ratio for orthodontic space opening was 3.185 (P value = 0.0215; 95% CI, 1.182–9.243) compared with counterparts with unilateral agenesis. None of the factors investigated were significantly associated with the types of treatment planned/provided for the patients with missing mandibular second premolars. Conclusions Maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular second premolars were the most commonly missing teeth. A trend away from space opening and prosthetic replacement toward orthodontic space closure was observed from 2000 to 2017/2018. This may reflect a change in attitude toward prosthetic replacement options and/or greater optimism with biomechanical strategies since the implementation of temporary anchorage devices to assist in space closure.

Objectives To evaluate gingival phenotype (GP) and thickness (GT) using visual, probing, and ultrasound (US) methods and to assess the accuracy and consistency of clinicians to visually identify GP. Materials and Methods The GP and GT of maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth in 29 orthodontic patients (mean age 25 ± 7.5 years) were assessed using probing and US by a single examiner. General dentist and dental specialist assessors (n = 104) were shown intraoral photographs of the patients, including six repeated images, and asked to identify the GP via a questionnaire. Results An increasing trend in GT values of thin, medium, and thick biotype probe categories was found, though this was not statistically significant (P = .188). Comparison of probing method to determinations of GT made by US yielded slight agreement (κ = 0.12). Using the visual method, assessors’ identification of the second GP determination ranged from poor to moderate agreement (κ = 0.29 to κ = 0.53). Conclusions The probe method is sufficient in differentiating between different categories of GP. However, further research is required to assess the sensitivity of the probe method in recognizing phenotypes in the most marginal of cases. Assessors using the visual method lack the ability to identify GP accurately and consistently among themselves.

Aim: This study primarily aimed to assess the accuracy of classically-advocated reference points for the measurement of transverse jaw-base and dental relationships using conventional Postero-Anterior Cephalometry (PAC) and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Method: PAC and CBCT images were collected from 31 randomly selected orthodontic patients (12 males, 19 females), all of whom had a full permanent dentition. The transverse widths of the maxilla, mandible and the dentition were measured using reference points on both image modalities. Confidence intervals, intra-class coefficients and Bland Altman plots were used to assess the measurement differences derived from the two acquirement methods. Results: Measurements on PAC and CBCT images demonstrated statistically significant differences in the majority of the assessed variables. The interjugal (J-J) width was one of only two variables which did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference on image comparison. The mean differences of the antegonial width (Ag-Ag) (-4.44mm, 95% CI -5.38 to -3.51) represented the greatest difference between the imaging techniques. The application of these points to a transverse skeletal analysis (J-J/Ag-Ag ratio) revealed that five of the 31 subjects (16%) recorded ‘false positive’ readings according to the derived data. Conclusion: It is recommended that clinicians are cautious when interpreting and making decisions related to transverse dimensions derived from a PAC. The PAC has a higher tendency to falsely identify individuals who require maxillary expansion procedures based on conventional clinical criteria. The errors primarily associated with identifying structures which represent the width of the mandible are significant in both PAC and CBCT techniques and require further investigation. It is postulated that the confounding effects of overlying soft tissues have a significant impact on a clinician’s ability to identify relevant landmarks.

Aim: To assess the validity of using Jugale (J) and Antegonion (Ag) on Posterior-Anterior cephalograms (PAC) as landmarks for transverse intermaxillary analysis when compared with Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Material and methods: Conventional PAC and CBCT images were taken of 28 dry skulls. Craniometric measurements between the bilateral landmarks, Antegonion and Jugale, were obtained from the skulls using a microscribe and recorded as the base standard. The corresponding landmarks were identified and measured on CBCT and PAC and compared with the base standard measurements. The accuracy and reliability of the measurements were statistically evaluated and the validity was assessed by comparing the ability of the two image modalities to accurately diagnose an arbitrarily selected J-J/Ag-Ag ratio. All measurements were repeated at least 7 weeks apart. Intra-class correlations (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyse the data. Results: All three methods were shown to be reliable as all had a mean error of less than 0.5 mm between repeated measurements. When compared with the base standard, CBCT measurements were shown to have higher agreement (ICC: 0.861-0.964) compared with measurements taken from PAC (ICC: 0.794-0.796). When the arbitrary J-J/Ag-Ag ratio was assessed, 18 per cent of cases were incorrectly diagnosed with a transverse discrepancy on the PAC compared with the CBCT which incorrectly diagnosed 8.7 per cent. Conclusion: CBCT was shown to be more reliable in assessing intermaxillary transverse discrepancy compared with PAC when using J-J/Ag-Ag ratios.