The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible effect of low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) on tooth movement and root resorption in orthodontic patients. Twenty-one patients were included in a split-mouth study design (group 1). Ten additional patients were included with no LIPUS device being used and this group was used as the negative control group (group 2). Group 1 patients were given LIPUS devices that were randomly assigned to right or left side on upper or lower arches. LIPUS was applied to the assigned side that was obtained by randomization, using transducers that produce ultrasound with a pulse frequency of 1.5 MHz, a pulse repetition rate of 1 kHz, and average output intensity of 30 mW/cm 2 . Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were taken before and after treatment. The extraction space dimensions were measured every four weeks and root lengths of canines were measured before and after treatment. The data were analyzed using paired t-test. The study outcome showed that the mean rate of tooth movement in LIPUS side was 0.266 ± 0.092 mm/week and on the control side was 0.232 ± 0.085 mm/week and the difference was statistically significant. LIPUS increased the rate of tooth movement by an average of 29%. For orthodontic root resorption, the LIPUS side (0.0092 ± 0.022 mm/week) showed a statistically significant decrease as compared to control side (0.0223 ± 0.022 mm/week). The LIPUS application accelerated tooth movement and minimized orthodontically induced tooth root resorption at the same time.

OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the root lengths of upper incisors as an indication of the degree of orthodontically-induced apical root resorption following treatment with Smart Track® aligners and compare it with two different fixed orthodontic appliances – regular and Damon brackets – using cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT).MATERIALS AND METHODS:The sample comprised 33 patients with class I malocclusion and 4–6 mm crowding divided in 3 groups; Group I: 11 patients treated with Smart Track® aligners, group II: 11 patients treated with Damon brackets, and group III: 11 patients with regular brackets. Maxillary incisors teeth lengths were assessed using Dolphin imaging software before and after treatment. All data were analyzed using analysis of variance and t-test.RESULTS:All groups showed statistically significant root resorption, 0–1.4 mm for clear aligners, 0.1–2.3 mm for Damon, and 0–2.5 mm for regular brackets group. However, cases treated with fixed appliance in general showed significantly higher resorption than those treated with Smart Track® aligners (P < 0.05).CONCLUSION:Orthodontically-induced root resorption, as evaluated by root length, is an inevitable drawback with different orthodontic techniques. However, the use of Smart Track® aligners showed less root resorption relative to regular fixed appliances.

No abstract

No abstract

Background:Three-dimensional cephalometric analyses are getting more attraction in orthodontics. The aim of this study was to compare two softwares to evaluate three-dimensional cephalometric analyses of orthodontic treatment outcomes.Materials and Methods:Twenty cone beam computed tomography images were obtained using i-CAT® imaging system from patient's records as part of their regular orthodontic records. The images were analyzed using InVivoDental5.0 (Anatomage Inc.) and 3DCeph™ (University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA) software. Before and after orthodontic treatments data were analyzed using t-test.Results:Reliability test using interclass correlation coefficient was stronger for InVivoDental5.0 (0.83-0.98) compared with 3DCeph™ (0.51-0.90). Paired t-test comparison of the two softwares shows no statistical significant difference in the measurements made in the two softwares.Conclusions:InVivoDental5.0 measurements are more reproducible and user friendly when compared to 3DCeph™. No statistical difference between the two softwares in linear or angular measurements. 3DCeph™ is more time-consuming in performing three-dimensional analysis compared with InVivoDental5.0.