No abstract

Objectives: The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare the frictional resistance generated by four different types of brackets in combination with stainless steel (SS) and titanium molybdenum alloy (TMA) archwires. Materials and Methods: Maxillary premolar brackets were used in this study. These brackets were divided into eight groups comprising seven samples each. Of the eight groups, four groups were combined with SS and four groups were combined with TMA archwires. The testing was done in the presence of human saliva. The static frictional resistance was calculated for each group. One-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests were done to compare the friction generated by each group. Results: There was a statistically significant difference between the friction generated by the monocrystalline brackets and the other bracket groups (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in static friction generated between self-ligating and conventionally ligated brackets. There was a statistically significant difference between the frictional resistance produced by SS and TMA wires (P = 0.02) with regard to monocrystalline ceramic brackets only. Conclusion: Monocrystalline ceramic brackets (Radiance) were found to generate the highest frictional resistance during sliding mechanics when compared to other brackets in combination with both SS and TMA wires. Self-ligating brackets did not show a statistically significant reduction in friction when compared to conventional ligation. There was a statistically significant difference between SS and TMA wires when used with monocrystalline brackets.

Objective The aim of this study was to compare and assess the pain perception, anxiety, and discomfort between two different rapid maxillary expansion (RME) protocols in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Design This is a prospective study. Setting The study was done in a comprehensive cleft care center. Patien and Participants The sample included 26 patients between ages 6 and 9 years with a history of repaired UCLP. Interventions The patients were randomly allotted into 2 groups—Group A and Group B. Group A received 1 RME activation per day and Group B received 2 activations per day. The participants after RME activation completed a self-report questionnaire and ranked the pain and anxiety levels using Faces pain scale and Hamilton anxiety scale, respectively. The evaluation was done every day for 1 week. Main Outcome Measure The Faces Pain Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Scale, and self-report questionnaires assessed the pain, anxiety, and discomfort experienced by the patients after 2 different types of RME activation protocols. Results Group B experienced significantly higher pain in the molars than Group A ( P < .001). There was no significant difference between the 2 RME activation protocols regarding anxiety and jaw discomfort. Conclusion Patients who received 2 activations per day experienced significantly higher levels of pain in the molars compared to the patients who received a single activation per day. There were no significant differences between the 2 activation protocols in terms of pain in the palate, tongue, anxiety, and jaw discomfort.

Introduction: Pain is experienced by patients during various fixed orthodontic procedures such as placement of separators, insertion of arch wire and its activations, orthopedic appliances such as headgear, and debonding of the appliance. This study was formulated with the background that the level of pain sensation differs between conventional metal and ceramic brackets, arch wire being the same pain is an important aspect of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQOL). Understanding how patients' pain experiences during their treatment affect their quality of life (QOL) is important and the absence of pain/discomfort is important for achieving a high QOL. Aim and Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between pain and OHRQOL among patients wearing fixed orthodontic appliances and to evaluate whether patient motivation and counseling had an effect on the pain and discomfort. Materials and methods: The data collection was done , the obtained data were tabulated and entered in the MS excel sheet. Data collection were imported to SPSS, variable definition process was done using tables and graphical illustration.

Camouflage treatment in borderline Class III patients, especially those who refuse a surgical line of treatment, remains a challenge to the orthodontists. Such patients were usually treated using Class III elastics and lower premolar extractions. Mandibular arch distalisation is an alternative option for non extraction Class III camouflage. Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs) help in achieving effective mandibular molar distalisation and are more accepted by adult patients. This case report discusses the diagnosis and management of two different presentations of borderline skeletal Class III malocclusion treated with miniscrew assisted mandibular arch distalisation. Two adult female patients between 18-20 years of age presented with a skeletal Class III malocclusion, average growth pattern, super Class I molar relationship and straight facial profile. The patients did not agree for a surgical line of treatment. Camouflage treatment by distalisation of mandibular arch using buccal miniscrew implants was done. Inter-radicular miniscrews were placed between mandibular second premolar and first molar to apply distalisation force of 250 gm/side. Lower arch distalisation of 2-3 mm was achieved in an average of 4.6 months. The outcomes were well retained 3 years post-treatment.