ABSTRACT
@#Skeletal Class III malocclusion treatment is complex, especially when jaw deviations are serious. Camouflage treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion improves prognosis with a slight-to-moderate functional shift. This report presents the case of a 23-year-old male with poor facial esthetics associated with chin protrusion and an uncomfortable bite. He had a concave profile, unfavorable incisor displays, protrusive lower lip, and strained lip closure. Camouflage therapy with a passive self-ligating (PSL) system through the anterior teeth of the maxilla protraction and arch expansion was used. After 14 months of treatment, the overjet outcome was positive. The teeth were arched, asymmetry was addressed, the convex profile and no deviation occurred when the jaw was closed. Factors in using the PSL system were low friction between the bracket and archwire, torque selection, and the significant dental arch expansion ability. The PSL system is an appropriate option in treating adults with skeletal Class III malocclusion to achieve a normal occlusion and a pleasant facial profile.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Determination of difference between conventional and passive self?ligating brackets (SLBs) in respect of extraction space closure, patient perception and root resorption. Material and Methods: Eighty patients were divided into four groups of 20 each with age?sex?matched control using a simple randomisation technique and allocation concealment with a closed opaque envelope method. Group 1 consisted of conventional brackets with Connecticut New Archwire (CNA) wire mushroom loop, group 2 consisted of conventional brackets with TAD (AbsoAnchor, Korea) supported retraction, group 3 consisted of passive SLB with CNA archwires (Libral Traders, India) mushroom loop and group 4 consisted of passive SLB brackets with TAD (AbsoAnchor, Korea) supported retraction. The rate of retraction, root resorption and patient satisfaction were assessed. All conventional brackets (Orthox, USA) and passive SLBs (CaptainOrtho, India) had 0.018 Roth prescriptions with a slot size of 0.018 × 0.025. Results: Retraction was the fastest in group 2 with a mean of 1.266 ± 0.14 mm/4 week and a duration of 23.40 weeks. Similarly, group 4 showed the most sluggish movement with a mean of 1.182 ± 0.80 mm/4 weeks with a total duration of 25 weeks; howeverdifferencesce among groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.470). Conclusion: SLBs have advantage of better patient comfort, less pain and reduced chairside time. Though the present study found increased treatment duration with SLB along with friction mechanics, refuting the previous claims of reduced friction with SLBs, however, the difference was not statistically significant and results have to be extrapolated with caution and experience considering other advantages of SLBs.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to compare the perception of pain between patients treated with passive self-ligating fixed appliances and those treated with Invisalign aligners. METHODS: This prospective study conducted in Saudi Arabia used an estimated sample of 64 patients from a private dental clinic. After obtaining written informed consent, the patients were divided into two groups; one group (n = 32) was treated using passive self-ligating fixed appliances and the other group (n = 32) using Invisalign® aligners. Immediately after fitting the appliances, the patients' perception of pain was evaluated through a close-ended and coded self-administrated questionnaire by using a visual analog scale (VAS). Their responses were recorded at 4 hours, 24 hours, day 3, and day 7. Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Pearson's chi-square test were performed for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A lower percentage of patients treated with Invisalign aligners reported pain than did patients treated with passive self-ligating fixed appliances, and these differences were statistically significant (p = 0.001). Similarly, the mean VAS score for the Invisalign group was significantly lower than that for the passive self-ligating fixed appliance group at different intervals during the first week of treatment. The intensity of pain with both appliances peaked at 24 hours (mean VAS score, 3.87) and was lowest (mean VAS score, 1.62) on day 7. CONCLUSIONS: During the first week of orthodontic treatment, patients treated with Invisalign aligners reported lower pain than did those treated with passive self-ligating fixed appliances.