Several biologically active substances representing the bone deposition and resorption processes are released following damage to periodontal tissue during orthodontic movement. Biomarkers are by definition objective, quantifiable characteristics of biological processes. The analysis of saliva/salivary fluid and Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) may be an accepted way to examine the ongoing biochemical processes associated with bone turnover during orthodontic tooth movement and fixed orthodontic treatment pain. Assessing the presence of these salivary physiological biomarkers would benefit the clinician in appropriate pain diagnosis and management objectively of various problems encountered during the orthodontic procedures and for better outcome of biomechanical therapy. Due to lack of standardized collection procedure, even though well accepted by patients, saliva is often neglected as a body fluid of diagnostic and prognostic value. A literature search was carried out in major databases such as PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus and EMBASE for relevant studies. Publication in English between 2000 to 2021 which estimated Saliva markers as indicators of orthodontic tooth movement was included. The list of biomarkers available to date was compiled and is presented in table format. Each biomarker is discussed separately based on the available and collected evidences. Several sensitive salivary and GCF biomarkers are available to detect the biomechanical changes occurring during orthodontic tooth movement and pain occurring during fixed orthodontic therapy. Further focussed research might help to analyze the sensitivity and reliability of these biomarkers or cytokines, which in turn can lead to the development of chairside tests to assess the pain experienced by patients during orthodontic therapy and finally the outcome of the fixed orthodontic therapy.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare the effects of quadhelix and nickel-titanium (NiTi) expander appliances on lower facial height, to quantify, and evaluate dentoalveolar and orthopedic changes in transverse plane, respectively, to estimate the difference in changes between these two appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients, ten for the quadhelix and NiTi expander in the two-appliance group, respectively, participated in this study. A total of 8 readings, 1 for clinical facial height, 2 for model analysis, and 5 for posteroanterior cephalometric analysis were recorded. The statistical tests used were, Student's unpaired and paired t-tests. RESULTS: Both appliances individually, produced statistically highly significant ( p < 0.01) expansion every month in both premolar and molar areas with more uniform expansion for quadhelix and less expansion in NiTi palatal expander in the premolar region initially. The skeletal to dental change ratio showed that there was more dental change than skeletal with no inter-appliance differences statistically while assessing the PA cephalometric readings. CONCLUSIONS: This study infers that both appliances are equally efficacious maxillary expanders, which are primarily dentoalveolar and not skeletal ( p < 0.05).

No abstract

No abstract