METHODS: Data consisted of pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of 95 children, 49 patients with RTB and 46 patients with RPFM, divided into an early (8-9 year) and late (10-11 year) group. Treatment changes were assessed by the Ricketts analysis using CASSOS software, where 71 anatomic landmarks were identified in each cephalogram. Paired and independent t tests were performed for statistical comparison.
RESULTS: Paired t test revealed significant changes in facial axis, facial angle, MD plane to FH, lower facial height, mandibular arc, maxillary convexity, U1 to APog, L1 to APog, L1 to APog angle and upper lip to E-plane measurements in RPFM, whereas significant changes were found in facial taper, U1 to APog and lower lip to E-plane values with RTB in the early treatment group. Independent t test revealed significant changes in U1 to APog, L1 to APog and U6 to PtV values in the RTB group. Post-treatment comparison of RTB and RPFM showed significant differences in L1 to APog and L1 to APog angle values.
CONCLUSIONS: RPFM revealed more favourable craniofacial changes than RTB, particularly in the late mixed dentition stage.
STUDY DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional study.
PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Orthodontic Department of Baqai Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan, from August to October 2013.
METHODOLOGY: Atotal of 209 pre-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of orthodontic patients were selected from departmental records, comprised of 92 males and 117 females. Radiographs were traced for measurements of ANB, Wits appraisal, Beta-angle, W-angle and Yen-angle. Patients were categorized into skeletal classes I, II, and III on the basis of performed measurements, incisor classification, and profile recorded from their records. Descriptive analysis was used to obtain median interquartile range in both the genders and Mann-Whitney U-test was used to observe gender dimorphism.
RESULTS: Skeletal class II was the most prevalent type of malocclusion. There were no difference in the obtained measurements between males and females except the Wits appraisal and Beta-angle in class II patients, which showed significant difference in values (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Pakistani population has no significant different difference in the craniofacial morphology of males and females, with the exception of Wits-appraisal and Beta-angle in class II cases.
DESIGN: A split-mouth randomised clinical trial.
SETTING: Subjects were recruited and treated in the outpatient clinic, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University.
PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen subjects with mean age 20.9 (±3.4) years who required extraction of maxillary first premolar teeth and mini-implant-supported canine retraction.
METHODS: Thirty orthodontic mini-implants were inserted bilaterally in the maxillary arches of recruited subjects following alignment and levelling. Mini-implants were immediately loaded with a force of 150 g using nickel titanium coil springs with split-mouth randomisation to a low-intensity laser-treated side and control side. The experimental sides were exposed to low-intensity laser therapy from a diode laser with a wavelength of 940 nm at (0, 7, 14, 21 days) after mini-implant placement. Mini-implant stability was measured using resonance frequency analysis at (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 weeks) after implant placement.
RESULTS: A total sample of 28 mini-implants were investigated with 14 in each group. Clinically, both mini-implant groups had the same overall success rate of 78.5%. There were no significant differences in resonance frequency scores between low-intensity laser and control sides from baseline to week 2. However, from week 3 to 10, the low-intensity laser sides showed significantly increased mean resonance frequency values compared to control (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence of some significant differences in resonance frequency between mini-implants exposed to low-intensity laser light over a 10 weeks period there were no differences in mini-implant stability. Low-intensity laser light cannot be recommended as a clinically useful adjunct to promoting mini-implant stability during canine retraction.