The rate of tooth movement is more rapid with Ni Ti coil spring than with the elastomeric module.

Objective: To compare the collum angle of maxillary central incisors in patients with different incisor relationships.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of finger pressure and plastic wafers in terms of pain control during debonding. Method: This cross sectional study was conducted at the Department of Orthodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, from January to June 2020, and comprised patients of either gender aged 13-21 years who had completed fixed orthodontic treatment with 0.022 brackets of Roth prescription and required debonding. The patients was divided into two equal groups. In group A, teeth were stabilised with finger pressure with cotton between the finger and teeth, and then debonding was done using open mouth technique. In group B, teeth were stabilised using a plastic wafer between maxillary and mandibular teeth, and then debonding was done using closed mouth technique. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale VAS. Data was analysed using SPSS 23. Results: Of the 110 patients, each of the 2 groups had 55(50%) subjects. Overall, there were 35(32%) males and 75(68%) females. The mean age of the sample was 16±2.4 years. Mean pain scores among the males was 32.0±7.68 compared to 34.067±12.59 among the females (p>0.05). Subjects in group B had significantly less pain than those in group A (p<0.05). Conclusion: Plastic wafer was found to be more effective in terms of controlling pain during debonding compared to finger pressure. Key Words: Pain measurement, Methods of debonding, Orthodontic pain management, Finger pressure, Plastic wafer.

Objective: To determine the most desired lip profile and compare the subjective sense of aesthetics among orthodontists, general dentists and the general population. Method: The cross-sectional study was conducted at the Orthodontic Department of the Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, from January 1 to February 25, 2020, and comprised different silhouettes for each gender with increasing lip procumbence from -6mm to +6mm with respect to Rickett’s E-line which were created using Photoshop CS 8.0 after cephalometric analysis of 20 cephalograms. The sample comprised an equal number of orthodontists in group A, general dentists in group B and orthodontic treatment-seekers in group C with equal representation of the two genders. Data was analysed using SPSS 24. Results: Of the 180 subjects, there were 60(33.3%) in each of the three groups, with 30(50%) males and as many females in all the groups. All the three groups preferred the average lip profile for males (p=0.018) and 2mm procumbent lips for females (p=0.008). There was significant difference of opinion between groups A and C (p=0.034) and between groups  B and C (p=0.022). Conclusion: There was found to be a marked difference of opinion among the orthodontists, the general dentists and the orthodontic treatment-seekers regarding the desired lip profile. Key Words: Aesthetics, Pakistani population, Cephalometrics, Lip profile. Continuous...