BackgroundThe study was designed to evaluate and compare the rest periods of 4 and 6 weeks for healing of orthodontically induced root resorption craters.MethodsThe study was conducted with a split-mouth design, with the right and left mandibular first premolars of 14 subjects serving as the two groups of the study. The right premolars constituted group A and the left ones, group B. Intrusive force was applied on these teeth for a period of 6 weeks, followed by retaining the teeth for 4 weeks (group A) and 6 weeks (group B) as rest periods before extraction. The extracted teeth were prepared for histologic examination with haematoxylin and eosin staining and studied under a light microscope. The histological sections were scored based on the level of repair (none, partial, functional, or anatomic) seen in the deepest craters in the apical third region of the roots. The mean values of the scores in the two groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U test.ResultsAll the teeth showed healing in their deepest craters. The teeth in group A showed partial repair more frequently (84.6%), with the remaining (15.4%) showing functional repair. The teeth in group B showed anatomic repair more frequently (60%), with the remaining (40%) showing functional repair. The mean level of repair was higher in group B (2.6 ± 0.5) as opposed to that in group A (1.15 ± 0.37). The difference between these values was of very high significance (P < 0.05).ConclusionsLonger rest period of 6 weeks showed more advanced healing than a shorter rest period of 4 weeks. Six weeks of rest period is adequate only for the functional repair of resorption craters.

Miniscrews have been increasingly used in orthodontics for distalization of the maxillary molars and also the entire arch. The two case reports in this article describe the en-masse distalization of the maxillary arch in Class II patients with different growth patterns with the help of four miniscrews in the arch. The placement of two miniscrews and their relative position on either side of the maxillary arch were used to control the magnitude and direction of force for distalization of the entire arch. At the end of the treatment, Class I molar and canine relationships were achieved in both the cases without the need for extraction or loss of anchorage.

Aim: This article is intended to provide an overview of the Surgery First Approach (SFA) mainly including case selection, diagnosis, treatment protocols, success rate and the potential problems encountered. Background:The most important indication of the need for orthognathic surgery is usually the psychosocial effect resulting from the unaesthetic appearance of a dentofacial deformity. The conventional approach in treatment of such deformities till today has been an orthodontics-first approach.

No abstract

Introduction: Orthodontic correction of Angle’s class II molar relation has, for long, been one of the challenges in orthodontics, with various researchers attempting to correct the class II molar relationship by diverse methods. One of the techniques that has gained popularity in recent times is maxillary arch distalization by infrazygomatic screws and miniscrews. The objective of the study is to measure and compare the amount of maxillary arch distalization and its effects, on adjacent teeth, by varying the positions of mini-implants by Finite Element Analysis. Materials & Method: A standard three-dimensional finite element model was constructed to simulate the maxillary teeth, periodontal ligament, and alveolar process. In this study, three models were prepared. Model-1: The (miniscrews) were placed between upper first and second premolar, and between second premolar and first molar bilaterally. Model-2: Infrazygomatic screws was placed between upper first and second molar bilaterally. Model-3: Infrazygomatic screws was placed on the mesio-buccal root of upper first molar bilaterally. The displacement of each tooth was calculated on x, y, and z axes when 200 gm of force was applied on each side. Result: Maximum amount of maxillary arch distalization was seen when infrazygomatic screws placed between upper first and second molar in model-2. Whereas maximum amount of maxillary arch intrusion and less distalization was observed when miniscrews placed between upper first premolar and second premolar and in between second premolar and upper first molar in model-1. The difference was statistically significant (p=0.005*). There was no bucco-palatal rotation of teeth observed among all three finite element models. Conclusion: Thus infrazygomatic screws and miniscrews are the effective means of maxillary arch distalization for the correction of Class II malocclusion.