Search

Introduction: This study aimed to assess and compare the duration and outcomes of orthodontic treatment with conventional and self-ligating lingual fixed appliances with the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Objective Grading System., Methods: Thirty consecutive patients with a complete dentition and Angle Class I malocclusion treated with a conventional lingual bracket system (STb; Ormco, Glendora, Calif) or self-ligating lingual bracket system (GC Experience-L; GC Orthodontics, Breckerfeld, Germany) were included. The occlusal outcome was assessed with the ABO instrument. The treatment duration and ABO scores of the 2 groups were recorded. Statistical analyses were evaluated using independent-sample t tests., Results: The conventional group had a mean treatment time of 2.10 ± 0.69 years, and the self-ligating group had a treatment duration of 1.68 ± 0.48 years (P >0.05). The mean posttreatment ABO scores in the conventional group were 20.23 ± 5.13, and the mean posttreatment ABO scores in the self-ligating group were 21.00 ± 5.66. No difference was found between the groups regarding the criteria of ABO (P >0.05). The highest scores were given in the assessment of buccolingual inclinations in both conventional and self-ligating lingual bracket groups., Conclusions: The design of the lingual appliances used in this study did not influence the treatment duration and the total ABO scores in treating patients with a Class I relationship in this sample. Both types of lingual brackets were especially deficient in correcting buccolingual inclinations. The strengths were their ability to close spaces and correct anterior rotations and overjet regardless of the bracket types., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To evaluate orthodontic treatment outcome in patients treated with a lingual appliance (Incognito™ Appliance System, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) versus patients treated with a labial appliance (Victory series™, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA)., Methods: A total of 72 patients were retrospectively analyzed. The complexity of each case was evaluated using the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Discrepancy Index (DI), and orthodontic clinical outcomes were evaluated using the ABO Objective Grading System (cast-radiograph evaluation: C‑R Eval)., Results: The mean total ABO C‑R Eval score was 16 ± 9.1 in the labial appliance group and 12.7 ± 5.4 in lingual appliance group (p = 0.152). The mean total ABO-DI scores were 16.3 ± 7.3 and 15.4 ± 6.6 in the labial and lingual appliance groups, respectively (p = 0.445). A significant correlation was observed between the total DI and total C‑R Eval scores., Conclusions: In this particular study and in the hands of two experienced orthodontists, no differences in the finishing quality of orthodontic treatments using the lingual technique or the buccal appliance technique were found. However, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are necessary in order to generalize these results.

Dentists and physicians see countless patients suffering from various types of headaches. Various modes of therapy are used in an attempt to treat these patients. As a result of this study, it appears that a common factor to migraine and tension-type headaches may be chronic clenching. If this is the case, then dentists may be able to treat headache patients more effectively than previously suspected through the use of a dental appliance.

Oral appliances have been used by dentists for several decades to treat snoring and obstructive sleep apnea. Although these devices are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, most have undergone only sparse clinical testing for efficacy and safety. Most otolaryngologists are not well-versed in their applicability as treatment options. This review summarizes the historical development of oral appliances, the types of available devices, the current literature regarding devices, and pertinent regulatory issues as they relate to the ongoing debate over appliance use and potential misuse.

The Magill Sagittal and Drive Tube was developed as a result of the demands for more efficient "fixed" functional appliances. Continued pressure on orthodontic laboratories and manufacturers has resulted in the development of various 'fixed' versions of the appliances necessary to accomplish the goals of functional jaw orthopedic therapy. The introduction of 'fixed' functional treatment modalities into the traditional "braces correct everything" USA market has spread rapidly over the past fifteen years. This method has evolved due to the demand by practitioners who want to gain more total control over the patient's treatment.