Objective: To measure enamel surface changes after ceramic bracket debonding and after cleanup. Materials and Methods: Forty extracted teeth were scanned in three dimensions using an optical scanner (baseline). Two ceramic bracket systems were placed (19 metal-reinforced polycrystalline ceramic brackets; 21 monocrystalline ceramic brackets). Seven days later, brackets were debonded and teeth scanned (post-debond). Adhesive remnants and bracket fragments were recorded. Tooth surfaces were cleaned using a finishing carbide bur and scanned again (post-cleanup). Post-debond and post-cleanup scans were aligned with the baseline, and surface changes were quantified. Results were statistically compared using t-tests and Mann-Whitney tests (a 5 .05). Results: The depth of enamel loss (mean 6 standard deviation) post-debond was 21 6 8 mm and 33 mm and post-cleanup was 28 6 14 mm and 18 6 8 mm (P 5 .0191); the post-debond remnant thickness was 188 6 113 mm and 120 6 37 mm (P 5 .2381) and post-cleanup was 16 6 5 mm and 15 mm for polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, respectively. The monocrystalline ceramic brackets predominantly left all adhesive on the tooth; the polycrystalline ceramic brackets were more likely to leave bracket fragments attached. Conclusion: Both systems allowed successful removal of the brackets with minimal enamel loss. However, the polycrystalline ceramic brackets left more fragments on the tooth, which complicated cleanup efforts. (Angle Orthod. 2015;85:651-656.)

No abstract

Objective: To evaluate and compare the long-term skeletodental stability of mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis (MSDO) achieved with the use of tooth-borne vs. hybrid distraction appliances. Materials and Methods: Posttreatment and follow-up orthodontic records were collected for 33 patients. The 14 patients who underwent distraction with a tooth-borne appliance had a mean follow-up of 5.08 years. The 19 patients who underwent distraction with a hybrid appliance had a mean follow-up of 6.07 years. Records included intraoral photographs, study models, posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs, and lateral cephalometric radiographs. Total changes of 16 measurements were analyzed to compare patients who underwent the tooth-borne vs. the hybrid distraction. Results: Both groups shared several similar and significant (P , .05) changes from posttreatment to follow-up records. Cast analysis showed a decrease in intercanine width and arch length and an increase in irregularity index. The postero-anterior cephalometric radiograph showed an increase in the width of the interincisal apices. The lateral cephalometric radiograph showed a decrease in the MP-L1 angle. The only statistically significant difference between the two appliances was the intercentral incisor contact point. Conclusion: Changes found are consistent with those found in untreated and orthodontically treated individuals over time. The long-term changes in the current patient sample can be determined to be expected and acceptable. MSDO is a viable treatment option with the use of either a hybrid or tooth-borne appliance. (Angle Orthod. 2017;87:246-253)

No abstract

The TSADRME appliance is an effective, clinically useful device that results in mild molar tipping and may positively affect expansion in the area of TSAD placement.