• Coated Rectangular Composite Archwires: A Comparison of Self-Ligating and Conventional Bracket Systems During Sliding Mechanics

      Woods, David K.; Williams, Robert E., D.M.D., M.A. (2013)
      The purpose of this study was to analyze the resistance to sliding of coated rectangular fiber reinforced composite archwires using various brackets systems and second-order bracket angulations. Resistance to sliding was investigated for eight bracket systems: six self-ligating brackets (four passive and two passive-active) and two conventional brackets. A rectangular fiber reinforced composite archwire of 0.019 x 0.025-in dimension from Biomers® SimpliClear was drawn through a three-bracket model system at ten millimeters per minute for 2.5 millimeters. For each bracket, the resistance to sliding was measured at four bracket angulations (0, 2.5, 5, and 10 degrees) in a dry state at room temperature. The fiber reinforced composite archwire produced the lowest sliding resistance with the passive self-ligating bracket system (Damon DQ) at each bracket angulation tested. Overall, self-ligating bracket systems generated lower sliding resistance than conventionally ligated systems, and one passive/active self-ligating bracket system (In-Ovation-R). There was a significant increase in resistance to sliding as bracket angulation increased for all bracket systems tested. Microscopic analysis revealed increased perforation of the archwire coating material as bracket angulations were increased. Our findings show that the rectangular fiber reinforced composite archwire may be acceptable for sliding mechanics during the intermediate stages of orthodontic tooth movement, however more long-term studies are needed.
    • The Pretreatment Profile Photo: Do We Need Our Patients to Smile?

      DePascale, Michael Thomas; Schneider, Monica, D.D.S., M.S. (2017)
      Objective: To determine whether a smiling profile photo should be taken on each patient on initial exam. Materials and Methods: 27 patient photographs were taken from the orthodontics clinic at the University of Maryland to be evaluated. A smiling and repose profile photograph for each patient was reproduced 4 times to make 4 different randomizations. A book of visual analog scales was given to 59 randomly selected laypeople to rate each photo. Results: Ten of 14 patients who showed a significant difference between the smiling and repose profile photos had a lower smiling photo score. There is no difference based on rater, gender. Conclusions: The smiling profile photograph may be an important tool in performing a thorough orthodontic diagnosis and treatment plan. Laypeople can detect the differences in smiling and repose profiles of the same patient and patients should be made aware of their own discrepancy by the orthodontist.
    • Treatment of Congenitally Missing Lateral Incisors: A Post-Treatment Esthetic Evaluation

      Jergensen, Justin Burton; Josell, Stuart D. (2011)
      Maxillary lateral incisor agenesis is relatively common in orthodontic offices and requires multidisciplinary action. While these cases are usually treated with a lateral incisor implant, a resin-modified bridge (RMB), or orthodontic space closure, little attention has been placed in the literature on comparing these three treatments in a posttreatment esthetic evaluation. This study asked orthodontists, prosthodontists, and general dentists to evaluate the final aesthetic outcomes of these treatment options. Using anterior intraoral photographs, all dentists were asked to rate the esthetics of differently treated missing lateral incisors, to identify which treatment was rendered, and develop a treatment plan a lateral incisor agenesis case. Results showed that implants and RMBs separately were esthetically rated the same for all three doctor groups, while space closure was ranked less esthetic by prosthodontists than by orthodontists or general dentists. All doctor groups could distinguish between treated or natural lateral incisors the same. For a Class I lateral incisor agenesis prosthodontists and orthodontists are more inclined to do implants than general dentists. In a Class II case orthodontists are more inclined to plan for space closure than prosthodontists or general dentists.