Objective To assess the efficacy and efficiency of treatment in adolescents presenting with mild malocclusions, comparing outcomes using clear aligners to fixed appliances. Materials and Methods Patients identified retrospectively and consecutively from one private practice had been treated with either clear aligners (Invisalign, Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) or fixed appliances (0.022 Damon, Ormco, Orange, Calif; n = 26/group). Assessments of occlusion were made using the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index (DI) for initial records and Cast-Radiograph Evaluation (CRE) for final records. Number of appointments, number of emergency visits, and overall treatment time were determined from chart reviews. Data were analyzed using Pearson's correlation, Wilcoxon rank tests, unpaired t-tests, and Chi-square tests, with significance set to P ≤ .05. Results Pretreatment, the aligner and fixed groups showed no significant difference in overall severity (DI: 11.9 ± 5.3 vs 11.6 ± 4.8) or in any individual DI category. Posttreatment scores showed finishes for the aligner group had fewer discrepancies from ideal relative to the fixed appliance group (CRE: 30.1 ± 8.3 vs 37.0 ± 9.3; P < .01). Patients treated with aligners had fewer appointments (13.7 ± 4.4 vs 19.3 ± 3.6; P < .0001), fewer emergency visits (0.8 ± 1.0 vs 3.6 ± 2.5; P < .0001), and shorter overall treatment time (16.9 ± 5.7 vs 23.4 ± 4.4 months; P < .0001). Conclusions Outcomes for treatment of mild malocclusions in adolescents showed equivalent effectiveness of clear aligners compared to fixed appliances, with significantly improved results for clear aligner treatment in terms of tooth alignment, occlusal relations, and overjet. Assessment of the number of appointments, number of emergency visits, and overall treatment time showed better outcomes for treatment with clear aligners.

Objective: To assess weight gain of infants with cleft lip and/or palate (CL ± P) treated with nasoalveolar molding (NAM). Design: Retrospective, case–control chart review. Setting: Doernbecher Children’s Hospital, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. Patients, Participants: Infants with nonsyndromic CL ± P and noncleft controls. Interventions: Prior to primary lip surgery, NAM was either included (+NAM) or not included (−NAM) in the cleft treatment protocol. Main Outcome Measure(s): Weight gain and percentage weight gain relative to initial weight were compared among +NAM, −NAM, and control groups from birth to 7 months and from birth to 36 months. Results: Comparing +NAM and −NAM groups, no significant difference in weight or percentage weight gain was found in either time window. Compared to controls, from birth to 7 months, both CL ± P groups weighed less ( P < .001), while percentage weight gain was greater for the +NAM ( P < .001) and did not differ for −NAM. From birth to 36 months relative to controls, weight for +NAM showed no significant difference and −NAM weighed less ( P < .01), while percentage weight gain was greater for both CL ± P groups ( P < .001). Conclusions: Comparisons of CL ± P infants treated with and without NAM showed that with the NAM appliance, despite its added complexity, there was no adverse impact on weight gain. Comparisons to noncleft, control infants suggests that NAM treatment may have a beneficial impact on weight gain.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract