Background: Interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) is a clinical procedure which involves reduction and anatomic recontouring of interproximal surfaces of enamel as a method of gaining space. The biological effects related to this clinical procedure have long been discussed. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the enamel reduction efficiency and the effects on enamel surfaces of the oscillating mechanical system for interproximal enamel reduction (IPR).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: The aim of the present prospective study was to detect the effects on vertical dentoskeletal dimension produced by molar distalization with Clear Aligners in a group of subjects with Class II malocclusion.
Methods: The Clear Aligners Group (CAG) comprised 20 patients (13 females, seven males) with a mean age of 17.2±3.
Purpose: The twin block (TB) is one of the most widely used functional appliances for the correction of class II malocclusions. Align Technology (San Jose, CA, USA) developed the Invisalign® mandibular advancement (MA) that replicates the mechanism of action of a functional appliance. The aim of this study was to compare the changes produced by the TB versus those by MA.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe aim of the study was to assess modifications of gingival morphology at the end of Phase I treatment with Invisalign First. Eighteen subjects (ten females, eight males, mean age nine years) treated with Invisalign First were selected. The following parameters were measured on intraoral photographs before treatment (T0) and after the first set of aligners (T1) at level of permanent incisors, deciduous canines and molars: gingival margin height (GMH) and deciduous canine inclination (DCI).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe objective of this retrospective study was to analyze the morphological changes of the upper arch after two protocols of expansion, the Invisalign® First system and rapid maxillary expansion (RME), in mixed dentition by means of geometric morphometric analysis (GMM). Digital dental casts of 32 children treated either with RME (RME group: 17 subjects; mean age 8.1 years) or the First system (First group: subjects; mean age 8.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: One goal of orthodontic treatment in mixed dentition is to expand the maxillary arch to allow proper tooth alignment and a correction of sagittal and vertical malocclusions. However, for most treatment protocols, expected outcome is not really clear to allow for a standardization of phase I orthodontic treatments. This lack of information makes it difficult for clinicians to predict tooth movements, including transverse expansion efficacy with Invisalign® (Align Technology, Santa Clara, CA, USA) in children.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF(1) Background: The nature of the changes that contribute to Class II correction with functional appliances is still controversial. A broad variation in treatment responses has been reported. The purpose of this study was to find cephalometric predictors for individual patient responsiveness to twin-block treatment in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion; (2) Methods: The study was performed on a sample of 39 pubertal patients (21 females, 18 males) treated with the twin block appliance.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFObjective: To evaluate the role of treatment timing on long-term dentoskeletal effects of Class II treatment with removable functional appliances followed by full-fixed appliance therapy.
Materials And Methods: A group of 46 patients (23 females and 23 males) with Class II malocclusion treated consecutively with either Bionator or Activator, followed by fixed appliances was compared with a matched control group of 31 subjects (16 females and 15 males) with untreated Class II malocclusion. The treated sample was evaluated at T1, start of treatment (mean age: 9.
Objective: To evaluate the craniofacial changes induced by functional appliances with special regard to the oro and nasopharyngeal sagittal airway dimensions in subjects with dentoskeletal Class II malocclusions when compared with an untreated Class II control group immediately after therapy and at long-term observation.
Methods: A group of 40 patients (21 females and 19 males) with Class II malocclusion treated consecutively either with a Bionator or an Activator followed by fixed appliances was compared with a matched control group of 31 subjects (16 females and 15 males) with untreated Class II malocclusion. The treated sample was evaluated at T1, start of treatment (mean age: 9.