INTRODUCTION: Despite discussion on the merit of various cephalometric superimposition methods, there remains a need to assess which one can be used in daily practice with reasonably accuracy and less working time. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate four methods of cephalometric superimposition by means of assessing the longitudinal changes in craniofacial morphology caused by growth and response of adolescents with Class I malocclusion to orthodontic treatment involving first premolar extraction. METHODS: Pretreatment (T1) and post-treatment (T2) standardized lateral cephalometric radiographs of 31 adolescents (20 females and 11 males), with Angle Class I malocclusion and indication of premolar extraction, participated in this study. Radiographs were digitized, traced and had structures identified by means of a cephalometric software. Four superimposition methods were used: Björk structural method, Steiner/Tweed SN line, Ricketts N-Ba line at N-point and Ricketts N-Ba line at CC-point. Positional changes were quantified by horizontal and vertical linear changes in the following cephalometric landmarks: anterior/posterior nasal spine (ANS and PNS), gnathion (Gn), Gonion (Go), Pogonion (Pog), A-point and B-point. Differences between T1 and T2 in horizontal and vertical positional changes for all superimposition methods were assessed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni correction (p < 0.05). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences among the cephalometric superimposition methods or when patients' sex was considered. CONCLUSION: Björk structural method, Steiner/Tweed SN line, Ricketts N-Ba line at N-point and Ricketts N-Ba line at CC-point methods were reliable and presented similar precision when the overall facial changes due to active growth and/or orthodontic treatment were examined.

Objective: To evaluate and compare in vitro cytotoxicity and corrosion resistance of mini-implants from three different commercial brands used for orthodontic anchorage. Methods: Six mini-implants (Conexão(tm), Neodent(tm) and SIN(tm)) were separately immersed in artificial saliva (pH 6.76) for 30 and 60 days. The cytotoxicity of the corrosion extracts was assessed in L929 cell cultures using the violet crystal and MTT assays, as well as cell morphology under light microscopy. Metal surface characteristics before and after immersion in artificial saliva were assessed by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The samples underwent atomic absorption spectrophotometry to determine the concentrations of aluminum and vanadium ions, constituent elements of the alloy that present potential toxicity. For statistical analysis, one-way ANOVA/Bonferroni tests were used for comparisons among groups with p < 0.05 considered significant. Statistical analysis was carried out with Graph Pad PRISM software Version 4.0. Results: No changes in cell viability or morphology were observed. Mini-implants SEM images revealed smooth surfaces with no obvious traces of corrosion. The extracts assessed by means of atomic absorption spectrophotometry presented concentrations of aluminum and vanadium ions below 1.0 µg/mL and 0.5 µg/mL, respectively. Conclusion: Orthodontic mini-implants manufactured by Conexão(tm), Neodent(tm) and SIN(tm) present high corrosion resistance and are not cytotoxic.

Background. Software programs for visualization and analysis of digital orthodontic models, apart from presenting the necessary features for diagnosis and treatment planning, also need to be user-friendly. This characteristic refers to software’ usability, a measure that evaluates how easy it is to use it is by a specific group of professionals. The aim of this study was to compare the usability of free available versions of two software programs for visualization and analysis of digital orthodontic models. Methods. Digimodel® and OrthoCAD® usability were evaluated through their interface analysis and executing the following procedures: malocclusion classification and models analysis (arch-length and tooth-size discrepancies). Results. Digimodel® and OrthoCAD® software programs had an installer only for Windows platform, occupied less than 110 megabytes of virtual space and only read files from their respective manufacturers. None possessed Portuguese as a language option. Both allowed visualization of the models in different axes through options present in initial screen, at a click. For model analysis, both software programs required to measure tooth to tooth and performed necessary calculations automatically. However, OrthoCAD® software program was less intuitive because the option for these actions was among several others, within menus, which could cause confusion during navigation. In addition, the marking of points did not always obey the clicked site. Conclusion. The free access version of the evaluated software programs exhibited usability limitations related to language, supported file format and even the model analysis execution for orthodontic diagnosis. Although OrthoCAD® was inferior, both did not meet orthodontists’ clinical demand against these factors in the evaluated versions.

No abstract

No abstract