Evaluation of Outcome of Orthodontic Treatment in Context to Posttreatment Stability: A Retrospective Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: One of the main aims of orthodontic treatment is the improvement of esthetics along with enhancement of functions of the orofacial regions. Complications are observed even after final completion of the orthodontic treatment due to relapse and loss of stability. Hence, we retrospectively analyzed angle class I malocclusion cases to study the correlation of outcome of orthodontic treatment and posttreatment stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients were included in this retrospective analysis, which accounted for the patients reporting to the department of orthodontics from 2013 to 2015 with angle class I malocclusion. Pretreatment, posttreatment, and postretention casts of the patients were made and analyzed. The Richmond et al criteria was used to evaluate peer assessment rating (PAR) index and Little irregularity index, followed by scoring with American weight. Measurement of Pearson's coefficient was done to calculate the p-value. p-value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant. RESULTS: No significant amount of alteration was seen in the systematic errors of Little index and PAR index, while casual errors were also within the normal range. While comparing the PAR index at pretreatment and posttreatment phases, statistically significant results were obtained, whereas in case of Little index at same time intervals, scores showed nonsignificant results. CONCLUSION: Even after delivering ideal orthodontic treatment, stability of the treatment is still not ensured until unless posttreatment follow-up is properly maintained.

Diagnostic features of Angle's Class II div 2 malocclusion.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A thorough knowledge of the salient features of malocclusion makes the practitioner to come to a proper diagnosis and to formulate proper mechanotherapy. It also helps to predict the prognosis, prior to the onset of treatment process. Among the various malocclusions, Class II div 2 occurs the least often. The literature review does not clearly describe the classical skeletal and dental features of Angle's Class II div 2 malocclusion. PURPOSE OF STUDY: The aim of this study is to describe the unique features of Angle's Class II division 2 malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 612 pre-treatment records (study models and cephalograms), with age ranging from 14 to 25 years, were obtained from the hospital records of Drs Sudha and Nageswar Rao Siddhartha Institute of Dental Sciences. Among these samples, 317 were Class II div 1 and 295 were Class II div 2. The lateral cephalograms were analyzed by using Kodak software and the arch width analysis was calculated by using digital vernier calipers. RESULTS: Student's t test was used for the study. On the cephalograms, the vertical skeletal measurements and few of the dental variables showed a significant difference. On the plaster models, the maxillary transverse measurements revealed a notable discrimination between the groups. CONCLUSION: Angle's Class II div 2 malocclusion has a marked horizontal growth pattern with decreased lower facial thirds, palatally inclined upper anteriors, and remarkably increased transverse maxillary arch dimensions.

Comparison of canine retraction by in vivo method using four brands of elastomeric power chain.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the amount of space closure by movement of canines into the extraction spaces using four brands of elastomeric power chains (EPCs) by intraoral application with pre-adjusted appliance for 6 weeks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample size calculation was based on the studies of Boester and Johnston and also with repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) continuous data for force degradation, standard deviation of 24.9 g, and also from a pilot study, which totaled to around 17 patients with a mean age of 20 ± 2 years and receiving fixed orthodontic treatment that required retraction of canines into the premolar extraction spaces in all four dental arch quadrants. Four brands of EPCs, namely the Ormco, 3M Unitek, Rocky Mountain, and Highland, which were closed-link with five loops delivering less than or equal to 250 g were used. The rates of canine retraction were measured between the attachment points on the canine bracket hook and first molar hook using a Mitutoyo Digital Vernier Caliper at the time of first application, after 3 weeks of use, and at the end of 6 weeks of use, and were subjected to statistical calculations. RESULTS: The distances recorded from canine retraction were similar with slight differences noticed in the four brands of EPCs. However, no statistically significant difference was observed in relation to the EPCs. CONCLUSION: Although all brands of the EPCs produced space closure of canines, it was observed that not much of a significant difference existed among the products tested.