Objective: To examine skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of the Miniscrew Implant Supported Distalization System (MISDS) and the Bone-Anchored Pendulum Appliance (BAPA). Materials and Methods: Among 28 patients displaying Angle Class II malocclusion, 14 patients with a mean age of 14.8 6 3.6 years treated with MISDS were included in the first group, and 14 patients with a mean age of 14.5 6 1.5 years treated with BAPA were included in the second group. The pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were analyzed. Statistical evaluation was carried out using the paired Shapiro-Wilk test, the paired-sample t-test, and the unpaired t-test. Results: Upper posterior teeth were distalized successfully in both groups. Nearly bodily distalization was seen in the MISDS group, whereas significant distal tipping of the upper first molars was observed in the BAPA group (P , .001). There were no statistically significant changes in the sagittal position of the maxilla and mandible and in the position of the upper incisors as a result of treatment in either group. Conclusions: Both methods provided absolute anchorage for distalization of posterior teeth; however, almost translatory distal movement was encountered in the MISDS group, and substantial distal tipping of the maxillary molars accompanied distalization in the BAPA group. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:460-467.)

To compare the dentofacial effects of mandibular incisor intrusion using mini-implants with those of a conventional incisor intrusion mechanic, the utility arch. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six deep-bite patients were enrolled to one of the two groups. In group 1 the mandibular incisors were intruded using a 0.16 3 0.22-inch stainless-steel segmental wire connected to two mini-implants. In group 2 the mandibular incisor intrusion was performed using a conventional utility arch. Conventional lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at pretreatment and at the end of intrusion. Thirty landmarks were identified to measure 23 linear and 20 angular measurements. Intragroup comparisons were made using a paired t-test or a Wilcoxon test. Intergroup comparisons were made using a Student's t-test or a Mann-Whitney U-test.Results: The duration of intrusion was 5 months for group 1 and 4 months for group 2. In the implant group, the mean amount of change was 0.4 mm/mo for the incisor tip and 0.3 mm/mo for the center of resistance, and in the utility arch group, the mean amount of change was 0.25 mm/mo for the incisor tip and 0.2 mm/mo for the center of resistance. The mandibular incisors showed an average protrusion of 7u in the implant group and 8u in the utility arch group. Conclusions: Incisor intrusion that was achieved using an implant-supported segmented archwire was no different than the movement achieved with a conventional intrusion utility arch. The only difference between the two methods was in the molar movement. ( Recently, several researchers 3,4 have focused on the effect of aging on anterior tooth display and on how treatment mechanics change the perception of age. Sarver and Ackerman 3 and Zachrisson 4 drew attention to the importance of lower incisor intrusion in deep-bite patients with reduced upper incisor display to preserving a youthful appearance.Lower incisor intrusion can be accomplished using different arches, such as a reverse Spee arch, 5 a three-piece intrusion arch, 6 or a utility arch. 7 Even though intrusion can be achieved successfully with all of these appliances, incisor proclination during intrusion and unwanted distal tipping on posterior anchorage teeth are inevitable.The use of temporary anchorage devices for lower incisor intrusion have been described in a few case reports, 8,9 and the effects were limited to the mandibular anterior area. In this prospective study, the effects of mandibular incisor intrusion achieved using a segmented arch and two miniscrews were evaluated a Private Practice, Edirne, Turkey.

No abstract

In recent years, the popularity of indirect bonding increased due to advantages such as reduction of chair time and enhancement of patient comfort. Although the indirect bonding technique has improved over the years, the literature has shown different techniques of bracket placement; furthermore, new materials were specially developed for this technique. The aim of this article is to provide a review of the literature, advantages, disadvantages, and laboratory and clinical stages of the indirect bonding technique. Keywords: Indirect bonding, bonding systems, orthodontics indirect technique INTRODUCTIONIndirect bonding was developed by Silverman and Cohen (1) in 1972 to reduce clinical time and to enhance patient comfort. In this method, they used cement for attaching brackets to the stone model, a sealant as a clinical adhesive, and thermoplastic trays for the transfer of the brackets. In 1979, Thomas (2) invented "custom composite base technique, " which is still the most widely accepted technique currently used for indirect bonding. In this technique, Thomas used a chemically-cured resin for attaching the brackets in a laboratory and a universal and a catalyst resin as the clinical adhesive. The major complication of the Thomas technique is that the polymerization of the chemical resin starts in the patient's mouth, which is problematic in terms of time. If the transfer tray was removed before the completion of polymerization, bracket failure can be seen, and if the tray was left in the mouth for too long, this can disrupt the patient comfort. To solve this problem, the Thomas technique was modified; the universal and catalyst resins were mixed outside the mouth and directly applied to the teeth and custom base (3). With the modified Thomas technique, indirect bonding achieved similar bond strength values compared with direct bonding.In the previous literature, chemically-cured resins were usually used as clinical adhesives for indirect bonding. Apart from these resins, glass ionomer cements, acrylic epoxy adhesives, and cyanoacrylates were also used (4-6).Read and O'Brien (7) used light-cured resins for indirect bonding in 1990, and with the advantages of these resins, the indirect bonding technique was further enhanced.In 2002, Miles (8) used a flowable composite in indirect bonding. The most important advantage of this resin was to fill the voids of the custom base with its favorable viscosity.With the advancement of technology, computers entered the practice of orthodontics, thereby enhancing the indirect bonding technique. Several companies offer three-dimensional computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (3D CAD-CAM)-generated methods for the fabrication of indirect bonding trays. In one of these, Suresmile (Orametrix Inc.; Dallas, USA) system (9), teeth are scanned using an intraoral scanner, and computer generated 3D images are produced. These 3D images are used for digital set-up, and the brackets are placed in appropriate regions of the teeth. The customized transfer trays for in...

Objectives: To evaluate and compare the biofilm formation between labial and lingual orthodontic brackets. Materials and Methods: Twenty patients with a mean age of 24 ± 8.8 who had received labial or lingual orthodontic treatment were enrolled in the study. Biofilm formation on 80 brackets was analyzed quantitatively with the Rutherford backscattering detection method. Five micrographs were obtained per bracket with views from the vestibule/lingual, mesial, distal, gingival, and occlusal aspects. Quantitative analysis was carried out with surface analysis software (ImageJ 1.48). Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05). Results: Total biofilm formation was 41.56% (min 29.43% to max 48.76%) on lingual brackets and 26.52% (min 21.61% to max 32.71%) on labial brackets. Differences between the two groups were found to be significant. No difference was observed in intraoral location. The biofilm accumulation was mostly located on gingival, mesial, and distal surfaces for both groups. Conclusions: The biofilm accumulation on lingual orthodontic therapy was found to be more than labial orthodontic therapy.