Correction to: Morphometric analysis of dental arch form changes in class II patients treated with clear aligners.

The authors would like to correct the conflicts of interest statement for this article. Unfortunately, the original statement did not include the authors' nonfinancial conflicts of interest, including grants and personal fees. The corrected conflict of interest statement is shown below:T. ….

Morphometric analysis of dental arch form changes in class II patients treated with clear aligners.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the arch form changes in class II Caucasian patients treated with Invisalign® (Align Technology, San José, CA, USA). METHODS: A total of 27 class II patients, for whom a maximum of 4 mm arch expansion was planned, were selected. Both maxillary and mandibular digital casts were compared at three different times: pretreatment (T0), accepted set-up (T1), and retention phase (T2). Each digital model was imported into GOM Inspect© software (GOM GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) to identify teeth crown facial axis (FA) and cusp points to create a coordinate system. In each model the origin of the coordinates was located at the contact point of central incisors and a system of Cartesian axes was constructed. Using the FA points, an average arch form was obtained for each clinical step and then the following comparisons were performed for each class group: T0-T1, T0-T2, and T1-T2. RESULTS: T1 showed wider maxillary and mandibular dental arches compared to T0 with maximum movements observed in the premolar regions (maximum movement 1.94 mm for tooth 15; P < 0.0001). In the T1-T2 comparison, a more buccal position of tooth 22, tooth 23, and tooth 24 (maximum movement 0.56 mm; P < 0.05) and a more lingual position of tooth 37 (maximum movement 0.81 mm; P < 0.01), tooth 36, and tooth 47 were observed at T1 with respect to T2. CONCLUSIONS: Although Invisalign® treatment resulted in a significant increase in arch width according to the prescription, some of the outcomes were different than those planned especially in relation to the final position of the lower molars.

Usefulness of an app in improving oral hygiene compliance in adolescent orthodontic patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of an app-based approach in a protocol for domestic oral hygiene maintenance in a group of adolescent patients wearing fixed multibracket appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty adolescent patients scheduled to start an orthodontic multibracket treatment were randomly divided into two groups of 40. Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), white spots (WS), and caries presence were recorded in all patients, and they were instructed regarding domestic oral hygiene maintenance on the day of braces application (t0) and every 3 months (t1, t2, t3, t4) during the first year of treatment. Study group (SG) patients were enrolled in a WhatsApp chat room-based competition and instructed to share monthly with the other participants two self-photographs (selfies) showing their oral hygiene status. RESULTS: SG patient participation in the chat room was regular and active throughout the observation period. At t2, t3, and t4, SG patients had significantly lower values of both PI and GI and a lower incidence of new WS and caries, compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: Integration of new "social" technologies in a standard oral hygiene motivation protocol is effective in improving compliance of adolescent patients and in improving their oral health status during orthodontic multibracket treatment.

Determinants for success rates of temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: a meta-analysis (n > 50).

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to review the literature and evaluate the failure rates and factors that affect the stability and success of temporary anchorage devices (TADs) used as orthodontic anchorage. METHODS: Data were collected from electronic databases: MEDLINE database, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge. Four combinations of term were used as keywords: screw orthodontic failure, screw orthodontic success, implant orthodontic failure, and implant orthodontic success. The following selection criteria were used to select appropriate articles: articles on implants and screws used as orthodontic anchorage, data only from human subjects, studies published in English, studies with more than 50 implants/screws, and both prospective and retrospective clinical studies. RESULTS: The search provided 209 abstracts about TADs used as anchorage. After reading and applying the selection criteria, 26 articles were included in the study. The data obtained were divided into two topics: which factors affected TAD success and to what degree and in how many articles they were quoted. Clinical factors were divided into three main groups: patient-related, implant-related, and management-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although all articles included in this meta-analysis reported success rates of greater than 80 per cent, the factors determining success rates were inconsistent between the studies analysed and this made conclusions difficult.