RESUMEN
@#Moderate to severe cases of skeletal Class III malocclusion, where residual growth is no longer present and orthodontic camouflage would not achieve satisfactory outcomes, are good candidates for a combined surgical-orthodontic approach. We present the case of a 34-year-old healthy male with skeletal Class III malocclusion, where aesthetics and masticatory function were further worsened by maxillary and mandibular transverse discrepancy, hyperdivergent pattern, moderate dental crowding, occlusal contacts present only on molars, negative overjet and overbite. The management of the case included a pre-surgical phase of surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion (SARPE) and an orthodontic treatment with fixed multi-bracket appliance, a surgical phase consisting in Le Fort I osteotomy and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO), and a myofunctional physical therapy targeting orofacial muscles following the orthognathic surgery. The pre-surgical phase was additionally integrated with a system of remote digital monitoring, such as Dental Monitoring®, to early detect any orthodontic emergency. As in-office visits were abruptly interrupted because of COVID-19 pandemic, the remote digital system also permitted to regularly monitor the patient at long-distance. In conclusion, a case of skeletal Class III malocclusion was successfully managed with a multidisciplinary approach which involved orthognathic surgery, orthodontic treatment, and myofunctional physical therapy. The additional integration of remote digital technologies, such as Dental Monitoring®, may provide a continuity of care to orthodontic patients in times of COVID-19 pandemic, when the regularity of non-urgent chairside appointments might be disrupted.
RESUMEN
Objective@#Planning of incisal position is crucial for optimal orthodontic treatment outcomes due to its consequences on facial esthetics and occlusion. A systematic summary of the proposed parameters is presented. @*Methods@#Studies on Google Scholar© , PubMed© , and Cochrane Library, providing quantitative information on optimal central incisor position were included. @*Results@#Upper incisors supero-inferior position (4–5 mm to upper lip, 67–73 mm to axial plane through pupils), antero-posterior position (3–4 mm to Nasion-A, 3–6 mm to A-Pogonion, 9–12 mm to true vertical line, 5 mm to A-projection, 9–10 mm to coronal plane through pupils), bucco-lingual angulation (4–7° to occlusal plane perpendicular on models, 20–22° to Nasion-A, 57–58° to upper occlusal plane, 16–20° to coronal plane through pupils, 108–110° to anterior-posterior nasal spine), mesio-distal angulation (5° to occlusal plane perpendicular on models). Lower incisors supero-inferior position (41–48 mm to soft-tissue mandibular plane), antero-posterior position (3–4 mm to Nasion-B, 1–3 mm to A-Pogonion, 12–15 mm to true vertical line, 6–8 mm to coronal plane through pupils), bucco-lingual angulation (1-4° to occlusal plane perpendicular on models, 87–94° to mandibular plane, 68° to Frankfurt plane, 22–25° to Nasion-B, 105° to occlusal plane, 64° to lower occlusal plane, 21° to A-Pogonion), mesiodistal angulation (2° to occlusal plane perpendicular on models). @*Conclusions@#Although these findings can provide clinical guideline, they derive from heterogeneous studies in terms of subject characteristics and reference methods.Therefore, the optimal incisal position remains debatable.
RESUMEN
Objective@#To evaluate if a remote digital monitoring system added at the end of orthodontic treatment could positively influence the retention phase by reducing the occurrence of misfit of removable appliances, number of emergency appointments (EA), and orthodontic relapse. @*Methods@#Twenty-seven patients who completed active orthodontic treatment were divided into the study and control groups. In addition to the standard chairside follow-up appointments at month 1 (T1), month 3 (T2), month 6 (T3), the study group patients were monitored using Dental Monitoring® with monthly intra-oral scans. Occurrence of misfit of removable retainers, number of EAs, and intercanine width change were recorded for both groups. Differences in EAs and retainer fit were assessed using the chi-square test. Intra-group and inter-group differences in the intercanine width were assessed with Friedman test and Mann–Whitney U test, respectively (α = 0.05). @*Results@#The study group showed a significantly lower occurrence of misfit of removable retainers (p = 0.027) compared to the control group. No significant inter- and intra-group difference was found in the EAs and intercanine width change at each time-point. @*Conclusions@#Integrating remote monitoring systems, such as Dental Monitoring® , to the retention phase of the orthodontic treatment may lower the occurrence of misfit of removable retainers. However, a small sample size and a short observation period limit the strength of this evidence. These preliminary results tentatively suggest that remote monitoring technologies may be beneficial, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the regularity of in-office visits might be disrupted.
RESUMEN
Objective@#Controlling the incisal inclination is fundamental in orthodontics. However, the relationship between the inclination prescription and its clinical outcome is not obvious, and the incisal inclination changes generated by different bracket prescriptions were investigated. @*Methods@#Twenty-eight nonextraction dental Class II patients (15 females, 13 males; mean age = 12.9) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were treated using passive self-ligating fixed appliances with three inclination prescriptions for maxillary incisors (high, standard, low), and two for mandibular incisors (standard, low). Clinical outcomes were compared among different prescriptions, and regression analysis was used to explain the effects of bracket prescriptions and to understand the prescription selection criteria (α = 0.05). @*Results@#For maxillary central incisors, low and high prescriptions were related to linguoversion (p = 0.046) and labioversion (p = 0.005), respectively, while standard prescription maintained the initial dental inclination. Maxillary lateral incisors did not show significant changes. For mandibular incisors, low prescription led to linguoversion (p = 0.005 for central incisors, p = 0.010 for lateral incisors), while standard prescription led to labioversion (p = 0.045 for central incisors, p = 0.005 for lateral incisors). The factors affecting inclination changes were the imposed change and selected prescription, while prescription selection was influenced by the initial dental inclination and initial intercanine distance. @*Conclusions@#The direction of correction of incisal inclination can be controlled by choosing a certain prescription, but the final inclination may show limited consistency with it. The amount of imposed inclination change was the most relevant predictor of the clinical outcome.