Objectives To compare the degree of accuracy of the Face Hunter facial scanner and the Dental Pro application for facial scanning, with respect to both manual measurements and each other. Materials and Methods Twenty-five patients were measured manually and scanned using each device. Six reference markers were placed on each subject's face at the cephalometric points Tr, Na′, Prn, Pog′, and L–R Zyg. Digital measurement software was used to calculate the distances between the cephalometric reference points on each of the scans. Geomagic X Control was used to superimpose the scans, automatically determining the best-fit alignment and calculating the percentage of overlapping surfaces within the tolerance ranges. Results Individual comparisons of the four distances measured anthropometrically and on the scans yielded an intraclass correlation coefficient index greater than .9. The t-test for matched samples yielded a P value below the significance threshold. Right and left cheeks reached around 60% of the surface, with a margin of error between 0.5 mm and −0.5 mm. The forehead was the only area in which most of the surface fell within the poorly reproducible range, presenting values out of tolerance of more than 20%. Conclusions Three-dimensional scans of the facial surface provide an excellent analytical tool for clinical evaluation; it does not appear that one or the other of the measuring tools is systematically more accurate, and the cheeks are the area with the highest average percentage of surface in the highly reproducible range.

This case report describes the camouflage treatment of an adult patient with hyperdivergent facial pattern presenting with severe Class II skeletal malocclusion, through the use of a hybrid clear aligner approach, that relies on both a partial lingual fixed appliance and the continuous use of Class II elastics throughout therapy. After 11 months of treatment, the goals had been achieved, highlighting that the correct diagnostic framework, proper patient selection and careful digital planning of a compromise treatment can provide satisfactory aesthetic and functional outcomes.

No abstract

Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the slot height of in-house 3D-printed resin brackets, comparing them with other types of brackets on the market today, both ceramic and metallic. Methods: Seven different types of bracket systems were selected. For each system, ten brackets for tooth 2.1 with 0.022 × 0.028-inch slots were selected (total n° 70). Considering the whole sample, five types were commercially available and two were in-house 3D-printed. The entire sample was divided into four different groups according to the bracket material and the method of holding the archwire. Precision pin gauges with 0.002-mm increments were inserted inside the slot of each bracket, and the slot heights were measured, microscopically ensuring that the gauge completely filled the slot, with full contact between both the bottom and the top of the slot. Results: With respect to the other five types of brackets on the market, the two types of in-house 3D-printed resin brackets showed great accuracy of slot height (0.558 ± 0.001 mm). There was a statistically significant difference between the real height measured and the nominal height declared by the manufacturers (p < 0.05) of all the samples investigated, with the exception of in-house 3D-printed resin brackets. Furthermore, the difference in slot height accuracy between commercially manufactured and in-house 3D-printed resin brackets was statistically significant. Conclusions: In-house 3D-printed resin brackets have a remarkably precise slot height, unlike commercially available brackets, whose slot heights tend to be significantly oversized with respect to the nominal values declared by the manufacturers.