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.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this virtual analysis study was to compare the accuracy and precision of 3-dimensional (3D) ear models generated by scanning gypsum casts with a smartphone camera and a desktop laser scanner.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six ear casts were fabricated from green dental gypsum and scanned with a laser scanner. The resultant 3D models were exported as standard tessellation language (STL) files. A stereophotogrammetry system was fabricated by using a motorized turntable and an automated microcontroller photograph capturing interface. A total of 48 images were captured from 2 angles on the arc (20 degrees and 40 degrees from the base of the turntable) with an image overlap of 15 degrees, controlled by a stepper motor. Ear 1 was placed on the turntable and captured 5 times with smartphone 1 and tested for precision. Then, ears 1 to 6 were scanned once with a laser scanner and with smartphones 1 and 2. The images were converted into 3D casts and compared for accuracy against their laser scanned counterparts for surface area, volume, interpoint mismatches, and spatial overlap. Acceptability thresholds were set at <0.5 mm for interpoint mismatches and >0.70 for spatial overlap.
RESULTS: The test for smartphone precision in comparison with that of the laser scanner showed a difference in surface area of 774.22 ±295.27 mm2 (6.9% less area) and in volume of 4228.60 ±2276.89 mm3 (13.4% more volume). Both acceptability thresholds were also met. The test for accuracy among smartphones 1, 2, and the laser scanner showed no statistically significant differences (P>.05) in all 4 parameters among the groups while also meeting both acceptability thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone cameras used to capture 48 overlapping gypsum cast ear images in a controlled environment generated 3D models parametrically similar to those produced by standard laser scanners.
METHODS: After a thorough search of the online journals, a total of 482 documents were found using keywords such as "Orthodontic Treatment", "Aligner Auxiliaries", "Elastic Ligatures" and "Tooth Movement." The database research, elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction and risk of bias were performed by the authors independently. This systematic review and network meta-analysis included prospective studies and clinical trials to evaluate research that had looked at the impact of various aligner auxiliaries on orthodontic activity in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.
RESULTS: Eight investigations of varying designs were selected for this review. The majority of investigations revealed that aligner auxiliaries significantly improve anterior root torque, rotation, and mesio-distal (M-D) movement, as well as posterior anchoring. They also significantly improved anterior root rotation. However, few studies have presented inconsistent or non-statistically significant findings.
CONCLUSION: Auxiliaries for aligners also appear to improve extrusion and other orthodontic movements, but there is insufficient evidence to support these claims. No research has examined posterior bucco-lingual expansion or tilting. Clarification of the effect of attachments and their related variables requires additional clinical investigations.