Search

Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of nonextraction orthodontic treatment for Angle class I malocclusion. Methods: A nonrandomized pre–post interventional study was conducted on patients diagnosed with Angle class I malocclusion, crowding (≤9 mm), and instructed for nonextraction orthodontic treatment. The weighted PAR (Peer Assessment Rating) Index is employed to determine the outcome of orthodontic treatment. Also, soft tissue and bone indexes were assessed before and after intervention. Data were analyzed by linear regression and T-test statistical test using R software version 4.3.0 by a blinded statistician. Results: Thirty-three participants (mean age: 20.5 ± 0.5, 75.6% female) completed the intervention and were included in the analyses. Linear regression showed there was a significant difference between before and after intervention regarding the weighted PAR Index (p < 0.001). Conclusion: It was possible to complete orthodontic treatment with nonextraction. For cases of minor malocclusion and generally symmetrical characteristics, nonextraction orthodontics was recommended.

Introduction: We aim to determine and compare the correlation between conventional and digital impression methods for measuring mesiodistal teeth dimensions. Methods: This cross-sectional analytical study was conducted on a total of 120 dental arch samples with less than 5 mm of tooth crowding, complete teeth on the dental arch, no missing teeth, and no fillings on the mesial or distal sides at Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy. Conventional (extra-fast alginate) and digital impressions using a 3D intraoral scanner (CEREC Primescan) were taken from all participants, and the dimensions of the mesiodistal teeth were measured. Using R software, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to analyze the correlation between conventional and digital impression methods. Result: The pooled correlation for the maxilla was 0.8062 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.7751–0.8334] (very strong positive correlation); for the mandibular, it was 0.7645 (95% CI: 0.7165–0.8054) (strong positive correlation), and for both jaws was 0.7863 (95% CI: 0.7581–0.8115) (strong positive correlation). Conclusion: In the Vietnamese population measurement of mesiodistal tooth width using a digital dental scanner can be used instead of conventional plaster models.