ABSTRACT
Severe class III malocclusion can be a great challenge, especially in adult patients. This case report describes an adult patient with severe skeletal class III malocclusion and with an obvious maxillary deficiency and mandibular excess causing both anterior and posterior crossbites in addition to a shift in the upper and lower midlines to the left concerning the facial midline. This was complicated by compensatory mechanisms such as the proclination of upper incisors and retroclination of lower incisors. Decompensation of the upper and lower arches was performed combined with upper arch expansion to relieve crowding in the upper arch and correct the posterior crossbite. This was followed by double jaw surgeries, including Le Fort I osteotomy in the maxilla and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) in the mandible. Orthodontic finishing procedures were then used to correct any other dental discrepancies. Remarkable esthetic and functional results were achieved with high patient satisfaction.
ABSTRACT
The treatment of Angle Class I malocclusion by atypical extraction is rather challenging. The extraction of four first premolars often manages it. However, in cases of compromised and non-restorable teeth, the extraction decision may be altered, making the anchorage and the treatment mechanics more challenging. This article reports the clinical case of a 16-year-old patient from Sudan who presented with a chief complaint "My teeth are crooked and sticking out." He had Angle Class I malocclusion with a bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. He had severe crowding in both arches and localized marginal gingivitis related to an ectopically erupted upper right canine (UR3) and lower right first premolar (LR4). The patient had a provisional restoration in the lower right first molar (LR6). Extraction of three first premolars and one first molar was the alternative of choice for this treatment, which restored function, providing improved periodontal health, achieved the desired facial esthetics, and allowed finishing with a stable and balanced occlusion. Management of angle class I malocclusion with atypical extraction patterns should be performed with careful mechanics and anchorage planning to obtain good results.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and orthodontic bracket base after debonding of orthodontic brackets bonded using two different adhesives. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety sound human premolars were divided into three groups of n = 30. 1. Transbond, where brackets were bonded with Transbond XT (3M Unitek); 2. Multilink, where brackets were bonded with Multilink Speed (Ivoclar Vivadent); 3. Multilink+etch, where brackets were bonded using Multilink Speed after etching enamel. ARI scores were obtained using a stereomicroscope. SEM was used to evaluate the treated enamel surfaces and the base of the brackets. One-way ANOVA was performed to statistically analyze SBS. The Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to investigate ARI scores, followed by multiple comparison tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: SBS was significantly lower in the Multilink group compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). SEM evaluation revealed minimum penetration of resin tags within the enamel and that most of the resin was attached to the base of the brackets in the Multilink group compared to the other two groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Application of Multilink Speed on nonetched enamel provides acceptable SBS of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel with minimum penetration of resin tags into enamel and less residual resin on tooth surfaces.
