Background This study aimed to verify the efficacy of two elastodontic devices in overjet (OJ) and overbite (OB) reduction during treatment with the Equilibrator Series II (Eptamed) and Occlus-o-Guide (Sweden & Martina) devices. Method Sixty patients aged 7–15 years were enrolled in the study, and were divided into test and control groups. The test group included 30 patients (14 males, 16 females; mean age, 10.66 ± 2.12 years) treated with the EQ (Equilibrator) Series II. The control group included 30 patients (15 males, 15 females; mean age, 10.76 ± 2.52 years) treated with the Occlus-o-Guide. The two groups exhibited the same orthodontic features. The orthodontic criteria were: skeletal and dental class II malocclusion (divisions 1 and 2); and the presence of OJ and OB. Evaluation of OJ and OB was performed at two timepoints: T0 (before starting therapy) and T1 (after 1 year). Results At T0, OJ and OB were similar for the two groups; however, at T1, both OJ and OB were significantly lower with the Eptamed device compared to the Occlus-o-Guide device (p = 0.0019). Conclusions Elastodontic devices improve orthodontic outcomes by aiding orthodontic patient management, diagnosis, and treatment planning, reducing the risk relapse acting on the whole organism and the rehabilitation of the tongue.

Background: This pilot study aimed to verify the efficacy of two orthodontic appliances in relation to changes in the lower intercanine distance in growing patients. Methods: Twenty patients aged 10–16 years were enrolled in the study and separated into test and control groups. The test group included 10 patients (5 males, 5 females; mean age, 10.4 ± 1.57 years) who were treated with an elastodontic device. The control group included 10 patients (5 males, 5 females; mean age 10.8 ± 1.53 years) who were treated with clear aligners. The two groups exhibited the same orthodontic features. The orthodontic criteria were: skeletal class I relationship, molar class I relationship, and presence of lower crowding. Patients were evaluated as having mild or moderate crowding according to the Daniels and Richmond index. The lower intercanine distance was evaluated at three timepoints via intraoral scans: T0 (before starting therapy), T1 (after six months), and T2 (after 1 year). Data were analyzed using a nonparametric approach via the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at T0, T1, or T2 (p < 0.05). Conclusions: elastodontic devices and clear aligners can successfully help the orthodontist conduct lower arch expansion treatment. These appliances are comfortable to wear, simple to clean every day, and reduce the number of dentist appointments. Finally, but not of least importance, these devices have allowed dentists to continue orthodontic treatments during the lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Backgroundthis pilot study aim to verify the efficacy of two orthodontic appliances in the treatment of the lower arch crowding in the growing patients.Methodtwenty patients aged 7–15 years were enrolled in the study, and separated into test and control groups. The test group included 10 patients (5 males, 5 females; mean age, 10.4 ± 1.57 years), who were treated with an elastodontic device. The control group included 10 patients (5 males, 5 females; mean age 10.8 ± 1.53 years), who were treated with clear aligners. Dental lower crowding were evaluated at two timepoints with intraorla scans: T0 (before starting therapy) and T1 (after 1 year).Resultsthere was not statistically significant difference between the two groups at T0 and T1 (p < 0.005).Conclusionelastodontic devices and clear aligners can help succesfully the orthodontist in the treatment of the lower crowding. This appliances are comfortably to wear, simply to clean everyday and reduce the number of dentist appointments. Finally, but not in order of importance, these devices have allowed to dentists to continue the orthodontic treatments during the lockdown during the covid 19 pandemic.