Background The patient’s needs should guide the orthodontist in choosing the most appropriate therapy. The purpose of the present survey was to compare the esthetic perception of the facial profile by orthodontists (O), dentistry students (DS), orthodontic patients (OP) and surgical-orthodontic patients (SOP) and to evaluate the influence of gender, age and level of study. Material and Methods A facial profile photograph of a young female was taken and twelve modified images were made, altering the position of the jaws in protrusion and in retrusion. Two hundred caucasian examiners, divided into four groups (O, DS, OP, SOP), were selected. Each examiner was asked to complete the questionnaire with an approval rating from 1 to 10. An ordinary least square OLS model was applied. Significant levels were set at P ≤ 0.05. Results All examiners considered a straight profile or a slight retrusion of the maxilla as the most attractive profile. Slight discrepancies (up to 2 mm) in jaw protrusion were barely perceived by patients. Mandibular retrusion (2 and 4 mm) was one of the least appreciated condition by all examiners. Surgical-orthodontic patients assigned lower ratings compared to orthodontic patients. Female subjects assigned lower ratings than males. Patients with secondary school education assigned higher statistically significant values compared to other levels of study. The lowest values were attributed by the sample of age > = 17 years. Conclusions The choice of the most appropriate therapy is based not only on a correct diagnosis, but on the evaluation of esthetic and psychological aspects. Key words: Estethic, profile, orthodontic, surgical orthodontic patients.

The aim of this case report is to present an innovative combined orthodontic-surgical technique to disimpact mandibular second molar (MM2) using an orthodontic miniscrew and an elastic chain. The impact on the Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was also evaluated. Using the present techinique, it is possible to expose the impacted tooth, insert a self-drilling miniscrew in the retromolar area, and remove the bud of third mandibular molar. At the same time the orthodontic force is applied with the use of an elastomeric chain that connects the head of miniscrew and vestibular and oral buttons bonded on MM2. A close traction is performed for the whole treatment time without the reactivation of the elastic force. The use of skeletal anchorage allowed the disimpaction of impacted MM2 in a short treatment time (about three months) avoiding the typical biomechanical side effects of traditional orthodontic appliance and increasing the effectiveness of the treatment. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the real advantages and disadvantages of this combined orthodontic-surgical approach.

No abstract

The use of traditional intra-oral devices in maxillary molar distalization is not without undesirable consequences. The aim of the present study was to compare the miniscrew-supported distal-jet appliance to a traditional distal-jet appliance by evaluating the amount of upper first molar distalization and the dentoalveolar side effects. Data of 600 subjects visited at the orthodontic unit of Sapienza University of Rom were analyzed. Only 46 patients met the inclusion criteria and were selected and treated. Subjects were assigned randomly to receive treatment either with miniscrew-supported distal-jet appliance (Group A) or with a traditional distal-jet appliance (Group B). In Group A, miniscrews were inserted using a computer-guided surgical guide. The amount of upper first molar distalization and the dentoalveolar side effects were assessed both on the digital casts and on the lateral cephalometric radiograph at the end of the distalization phase. A descriptive statistical analysis that included the mean values and the standard deviation was conducted to evaluate the molar distalization and the dentoalveolar effects in two groups. Intergroup differences were determined using the Student’s t-test. The significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. In Group A, greater maxillary first molar distalization and a spontaneous distalization of the first premolars and a palatal inclination of central incisors were observed. By contrast, in Group B, the first premolars tipped mesially and a proclination of the maxillary central incisors was observed. In both groups, the transverse widths of the dental arch increased while a greater tendency of first premolar extrusion and of maxillary first molar rotation was observed in Group B. The skeletal anchorage device achieved greater first molar distalization and did not cause dento-alveolar side effects.