Evaluating the efficiency of mandibular molar protraction using Herbst appliances versus temporary anchorage devices: a retrospective case-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Mandibular second premolar agenesis is a common problem in orthodontics and is often treated in conjunction with maxillary counterbalancing extractions. However, in cases without maxillary crowding or dental protrusion, space closure may pose challenges leading to compromised occlusal results or patient profile. Multiple techniques have been described to treat these patients; nevertheless, there is a paucity of data comparing effectiveness of space closure utilizing various anchorage techniques. The goal of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the Herbst device during mandibular molar protraction and compare it to the use of temporary anchorage device (TADs) in patients with mandibular second premolar agenesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 33 patients with mandibular premolar agenesis treated without maxillary extractions. Of these patients, 21 were treated with protraction Herbst devices and 12 with TADs. Changes in molar and incisor positions, skeletal base positions and occlusal plane angulations were assessed on pretreatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) lateral cephalograms. Scans/photographs at T0 and T1 were used to evaluate canine relationship changes representing anchorage control. Space closure and breakage/failure rates were also compared. Data was analyzed with paired and unpaired t-tests at the significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Within the Herbst group, changes in mandibular central incisor uprighting and mandibular molar crown angulations were statistically significant. However, no significant differences were noted between the Herbst and TAD groups. Protraction rates as well as overall treatment times were comparable (0.77 mm/month vs. 0.55 mm/month and 3.02 years vs. 2.67 years, respectively). Canine relationships were maintained or improved toward a class I in 82.85% of the Herbst sample, compared to in 66.7% of the TAD sample. Emergency visits occurred in 80.1% of the Herbst group, with cementation failures or appliance breakages as the most common reasons. CONCLUSION: The Herbst device could be a viable modality in cases with missing mandibular premolars where maximum anterior anchorage is desired, or if patients/parents are resistant to TADs. Furthermore, they could be beneficial in skeletal class II patients with mandibular deficiency who also need molar protraction. However, the increased incidence of emergency visits must be considered when treatment is planned.

Orthodontic pain with fixed appliances and clear aligners: A 6-month comparison.

INTRODUCTION: This prospective study compared pain perception, intensity, and analgesic use among patients treated with fixed appliances (FAs) and clear aligners (CAs) over 6 months. METHODS: Digital surveys were collected from 87 adult patients treated with CA or FA from 2 orthodontic offices. The 7-item survey was sent at 3-time points (preappointment, 2-day postappointment, and 7-day postappointment) for each appointment. Wilcoxon, t test, and Fisher exact chi-square tests were performed with significance set at 0.05. RESULTS: The FA group had a higher rate and intensity of pain 2 days after the second, third, and fifth appointments (P <0.030). At 7 days postappointment, the FA group had a higher rate and intensity of pain for the first and fifth appointments. Dull pain was reported the most in both groups, with a proportion of FA patients reporting throbbing (31%) or sharp (20%) pain (P = 0.035) at 2 days postappointment. The CA group reported the most pain at rest, whereas the FA group reported chewing as the most painful (P = 0.002). The FA group had a higher rate of analgesic consumption after the first appointment (P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Both the FA and CA groups experienced similar rates and intensities of pain 2 days after the delivery of appliances at the first appointment. Although CA pain intensity remained minimal, FA pain peaked 2 days postappointment whenever a new orthodontic stimulus was introduced and remained elevated 7 days postappointment when that stimulus was a new archwire material.

Does age influence deep overbite correction with Invisalign? A prospective study evaluating mandibular incisor intrusion in adolescents vs adults.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of mandibular incisor intrusion with Invisalign (Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) in adolescents to that in adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective clinical study included 58 patients treated with either Invisalign Teen or Invisalign Full. Mandibular central and lateral incisors were measured on digital models created from intraoral scans. Predicted values were determined by superimposing the initial and final ClinCheck models, and achieved values were determined by superimposing the initial ClinCheck models and the digital models from the final scans. Individual teeth were superimposed with a best-fit analysis and measured using Compare software (version 8.1; GeoDigm, Falcon Heights, Minn). RESULTS: The mean accuracies of mandibular incisor intrusion were 63.5% in adolescents and 45.3% in adults, and this difference was statistically significant. The amounts of achieved intrusion were 1.7 mm in adolescents and 0.9 mm in adults, and this difference was also statistically significant. Overall, there was a weak negative correlation between age and accuracy; as age advanced, the accuracy of mandibular incisor intrusion diminished slightly. CONCLUSIONS: Mandibular incisor intrusion with Invisalign is significantly more accurate in adolescents than in adults. Orthodontists could contemplate reducing the degree of overcorrection for mandibular incisor intrusion in adolescents with deep overbites undergoing Invisalign Teen but still implementing the reverse curve of Spee mechanics.