Ectopic Eye Tooth Management: Photobiomodulation / low-level Laser Emission Role in Root Resorption After Fixed Orthodontic Treatment

The orthodontic treatment brings numerous benefits and, in most cases, the benefits outweigh the possible disadvantages. Root resorption (RR) is a common adverse phenomenon associated with orthodontic treatment. This study evaluates the role of low-level laser emission / Photobiomodu-lation (LE/P) in quantitative measurements of root resorption (QRR). The application of LE/P was done after each orthodontic activation with 4 types of treatment intervention (TI) on the RR after fixed orthodontic treatment (FOT) of the upper arch with ectopic eye tooth/teeth [EET]. 32 Orthodontic patients scheduled for FOT were selected and assigned to the 4 groups. These were LE/P+Self ligating bracket (SLB), LE/P+Conventional bracket (CB), Non-Photobiomodulation (non-LE/P)+SLB, and non-LE/P+CB. Standard management stages of FOT were followed in the maxilla. Each patient received a single application of LE/P labially/buccally and palatally, a total of 5 different points during each activation or appointment. The main outcome measure was QRR in maxillary anteriors before and after FOT assessed via cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D OnDemand software. Insignificant QRR was found between before and after FOT in SLB, CLB, and LE/P, non-LE/P groups (p > 0.05). QRR in the SLB vs CB and LE/P vs non-LE/P group was significantly different in 11, 13, and 23 (p < 0.05). QRR in the LE/P+SLB group (p < 0.05) was significantly different in 11, 13, and 23 than that in the other groups. The most severe QRR was found on the 13 (0.88 ± 0.28mm and 0.87±0.27mm) and 23 (1.19 ± 0.14 mm and 1.16±0.13mm) in the CB and non-LE/P group (p < 0.001). LE/P+SLB showed highly significant superior outcome (p < 0.001) in relation to non-LE/P+CB, the QRR of 23 were 0.813± 0.114mm and 1.156± 0.166mm respectively. Significantly higher amount of QRR found in EET patients after FOT treated with the CB, non-LE/P, and non-LE/P+CB system and warrants further investigation to explore potential specific causes.

The verisimilitude of damon brackets versus damon archwires– The real hero

: The Damon passive self-ligating system introduced broad archwires and a passive clip with posterior expansion and with minimal tipping of the teeth. To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of Damon brackets and Damon arch wires in maxillary arch dimensional changes with that of conventional brackets and conventional archwires. A total of 20 patients were selected for the study and randomly divided into 4 Groups with 5 patients in each group. Records (Study models) were taken before starting the treatment (T0) and at the end of leveling and alignment (T1) for all the 20 subjects. Pre-treatment (T0) and at the end of leveling and alignment (T1) study models were assessed for inter canine width, inter first premolar width and inter first molar width. There was statistically significant increase in maxillary arch width in Damon system and conventional bracket with Damon archwires when compared to conventional bracket system and Damon brackets with conventional archwires. The use of conventional or self-ligating brackets does not seem to be an important predictor of change in maxillary arch width in non-extraction patients. The amount of increase in arch width was due to Damon archwires and not because of Damon brackets.

Periodontal Parameters Alterations with Use of Conventional Bracket and Self-ligating Brackets

Introduction: Different bracket systems are available in the market claiming to have some advantage over the other. Conventional brackets and the self-ligating brackets are the most common. Though both the systems work basically similarly, the difference between the two system is principally in the ligating technique. The advantage of conventional brackets claimed are faster tooth movements and improved oral health of the patient. Materials & Method: A total number of 20 patients were shorted from the waiting list meeting the selection criteria. With the help of random number generator, two groups with 10 subjects each were created for conventional brackets (0.022 Slot MBT brackets) and self-ligating brackets (0.022 Slot DAMON prescription) respectively. The patients were blinded regarding the selection of the brackets. The brackets were bonded according to the random number allocation. After the bonding, the periodontal parameters i.e. gingival index (GI), plaque Index (PI) were measured again at an interval of 60 (T1) and 120 days (T2). Periodontal indices were calculated by summing the mean score of each examined tooth and dividing by the number of the evaluated teeth. Data collection was done with the help of a periodontal probe. All the records were taken by the same periodontist to avoid inter-examiner variability. To reassure that there is no any intra-examiner variation for periodontal status, the same periodontist re-measured the periodontal parameters again of 10 individuals selected randomly after 7 days from the initial measurements. To examine the intra-examination variability, Dahlberg’s formula was used between the two readings taken at a span of 7 days of the same subjects. The mean value of Plaque index and Gingival index was checked for normal distribution applying Kolmogorov- Smirnov test. One-way ANOVA test was applied for comparison between and within groups for plaque index and Gingival index during three different period in Conventional brackets and Self-ligating brackets. Post hoc Bonferroni test was applied for multiple comparison. Independent t-test was applied for comparison between conventional brackets and self-ligating brackets to compare the plaque index and gingival index. All data were test were analyzed at P<0.05. Result: There was no any significant difference between T0 and T1 and between T1 and T2 in both the conventional brackets and self-ligating brackets. However, there was statistical difference between the time period from T0 to T2. There was also no any significant difference between conventional bracket and self-ligating brackets in terms of plaque index and gingival index. Conclusion: There are no advantages of self-ligating brackets over conventional brackets in terms of periodontal status.

Laser assisted orthodontic tooth movement in Saudi population: a randomized clinical trial.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess laser assisted orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) among subjects undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment (FOT) of four different treatment modalities (TM). Materials and Methods: Following consort flow diagram, a total of 32 subjects randomly allocated in to 4 different group based on TM. Group A (GA): 8 subjects, FOT with self-ligating bracket (SLB) + low laser irradiation (LLLI), Group A (GB): 8 subjects, FOT with self-ligating bracket + Non-LLLI, Group C (GC): 8 subjects, FOT with conventional bracket (CB) + low laser irradiation (LLLI), Group D (GD): 8 subjects, FOT with CB + Non-LLLI. Results: Clinical photographs and diagnostic CBCT has been taken. Clinical observation of OTM, baseline, 1-day and 28-day afterFOT in all TM groups has been assessed by single calibrated specialist. Among 4 TM groups, best OTM results observed in GA and the lesser OTM observed in GD. Conclusion: Among all 4 TM groups,1-month after FOT GA revealed promising benefit in relation to OTM. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol.18(2) 2019 p.385-390