METHODS: Six makes, three each monocrystalline (M) and polycrystalline (P) were used; PureSapphire (M), SPA Aesthetic (M), Ghost (M), Mist (P), Reflections (P), and Dual Ceramic (P). The Ortholux™ Light Curing Unit (LCU) was used to cure the orthodontic adhesive Transbond™XT. The LCU's tip irradiance was measured and TLE transmitted through the ceramic bracket was obtained, then adhesive added to the bracket, and transmitted TLE measured through bracket-plus-adhesive samples. The LCU was set at five seconds as recommended for curing adhesive through ceramic brackets.
RESULTS: Mean tip irradiance was 1859.2±16.2mW/cm2. The TLE transmitted through brackets alone ranged 1.7 to 3.9J/cm2, in the descending order: Ghost>Pure Sapphire>Reflections>Mist>SPA Aesthetics>Dual Ceramic. The TLE transmitted through bracket-plus-adhesive samples ranged 1.6 to 3.7J/cm2, in the descending order: Ghost>Mist>Reflections>Pure Sapphire>SPA Aesthetics>Dual Ceramic. TLE was reduced with the addition of adhesive (range -0.1 to -0.7J/cm2). There was a significant difference for Pure Sapphire, Reflections, and Mist (P<0.05), but not for SPA Aesthetics, Ghost, and Dual Ceramic. There was no overall significant difference between the monocrystalline and polycrystalline makes. The two best makes were of the monocrystalline type, concerning TLE transmission, but with the exception of polycrystalline Dual Ceramic; the next worst make was a monocrystalline bracket, SPA Aesthetics.
CONCLUSION: Light energy attenuation through ceramic orthodontic brackets is make-dependent, with no overall difference between monocrystalline and polycrystalline brackets. Light energy is further attenuated with the addition of resin-based orthodontic adhesive.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of the scientific literature from January 2005 to June 2016 was done using Web of Science, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source and PubMed databases. A combination of search terms "rapid maxillary expansion", "nasal", "airway" and "breathing" were used. Studies that involved surgical or combined RME-surgical treatments and patients with craniofacial anomalies were excluded.
RESULTS: The initial screening yielded a total of 183 articles. After evaluation of the titles, abstracts and accessing the full text, a total of 20 articles fulfilled both inclusion/exclusion criteria and possessed adequate evidence to be incorporated into this review.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-surgical RME was found to improve breathing, increase nasal cavity geometry and decrease nasal airway resistance in children and adolescents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven cephalometric variables (facial angle, ANB, maxillary depth, U1/FH, FMA, IMPA, FMIA) were measured by a dentist in 60 Malay subjects (30 males and 30 females) with class I occlusion and balanced face. Two standard images were taken for each subject with conventional cephalometric radiography and MicroScribe-3DXL. All the images were traced and analysed. SPSS version 2.0 was used for statistical analysis with P-value was set at P<0.05.
RESULTS: The results revealed a significant statistic difference in four measurements (U1/FH, FMA, IMPA, FMIA) with P-value range (0.00 to 0.03). The difference in the measurements was considered clinically acceptable. The overall reliability of MicroScribe-3DXL was 92.7% and its validity was 91.8%.
CONCLUSION: The MicroScribe-3DXL is reliable and valid to most of the cephalometric variables with the advantages of saving time and cost. This is a promising device to assist in diverse areas in dental practice and research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 64 sets of digitised maxilla and mandible dental casts obtained from a sample of dental arch with normal occlusion. For human evaluation, a convenient sample of orthodontic practitioners ranked the photo images of dental cast from the most tapered to the less tapered (square). In the mathematical analysis, dental arches were interpolated using the fourth-order polynomial equation with millimetric acetate paper and AutoCAD software. Finally, the relations between human evaluation and mathematical objective analyses were evaluated.
RESULTS: Human evaluations were found to be generally in agreement, but only at the extremes of tapered and square arch forms; this indicated general human error and observer bias. The two methods used to plot the arch form were comparable.
CONCLUSION: The use of fourth-order polynomial equation may be facilitative in obtaining a smooth curve, which can produce a template for individual arch that represents all potential tooth positions for the dental arch.