Cleft lip and palate (CLP) is one of the most common birth defects. Multiple factors are believed to be responsible for an unfavorable dental arch relationship in CLP. Facial growth (maxillary) retardation, which results in class III malocclusion, is the primary challenge that CLP patients face. Phenotype factors and postnatal treatment factors influence treatment outcomes in unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) children, which has led to a great diversity in protocols and surgical techniques by various cleft groups worldwide. The aim of this study was to illustrate the dental arch relationship (DAR) and palatal morphology (PM) of UCLP in Bangladeshi children and to explore the various factors that are responsible for poor DAR and PM. Dental models of 84 subjects were taken before orthodontic treatment and alveolar bone grafting. The mean age was 7.69 (SD 2.46) years. The DAR and PM were assessed blindly by five raters using the EUROCRAN index (EI). Kappa statistics was used to evaluate the intra- and inter-examiner agreement, chi square was used to assess the associations, and logistic regression analysis was used to explore the responsible factors that affect DAR and PM. The mean EUROCRAN scores were 2.44 and 1.93 for DAR and PM, respectively. Intra- and inter-examiner agreement was moderate to very good. Using crude and stepwise backward regression analyses, significant associations were found between the modified Millard technique (P = 0.047, P = 0.034 respectively) of cheiloplasty and unfavorable DAR. Complete UCLP (P = 0.017) was also significantly correlated with unfavorable DAR. The PM showed a significant association with the type of cleft, type of cheiloplasty and type of palatoplasty. This multivariate study determined that the complete type of UCLP and the modified Millard technique of cheiloplasty had significantly unfavorable effects on both the DAR and PM.

Objective. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) is a noninvasive modality to stimulate bone remodeling (BR) and the healing of hard and soft tissues. This research evaluates the biostimulatory effect of LIPUS on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) and associated pain, when applied at 3-week intervals. Methods. Twenty-two patients (11 males and 11 females; mean age 19.18 ± 2.00 years) having Angle’s Class II division 1 malocclusion needing bilateral extractions of maxillary first bicuspids were recruited for this split-mouth randomized clinical trial. After the initial stage of alignment and leveling with contemporary edgewise MBT (McLaughlin–Bennett–Trevisi) prescription brackets (Ortho Organizers, Carlsbad, Calif) of 22 mil, followed by extractions of premolars bilaterally, 6 mm nickel-titanium spring was used to retract the canines separately by applying 150 g force on 0.019 × 0.025-in stainless steel working archwires. LIPUS (1.1 MHz frequency and 30 mW/cm² intensity output) was applied for 20 minutes extraorally and reapplied after 3 weeks for 2 more successive visits over the root of maxillary canine on the experimental side whereas the other side was placebo. A numerical rating scale- (NRS-) based questionnaire was given to the patients on each visit to record their weekly pain experience. Impressions were also made at each visit before the application of LIPUS (T1, T2, and T3). Models were scanned with a CAD/CAM scanner (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). Mann–Whitney U test was applied for comparison of canine movement and pain intensity between both the groups. Results. No significant difference in the rate of canine movement was found among the experimental (0.90 mm ± 0.33 mm) and placebo groups (0.81 mm ± 0.32 mm). There was no difference in pain reduction between experimental and placebo groups ( ). Conclusion. Single-dose application of LIPUS at 3-week intervals is ineffective in stimulating the OTM and reducing associated treatment pain.

Objective. To assess the effect of low-level laser applied at 3 weeks intervals on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) and pain using conventional brackets (CB). Materials and Methods. Twenty patients with Angle’s class II div 1 (10 males and 10 females; aged 20.25 ± 3.88 years) needing bilateral extractions of maxillary first bicuspids were recruited. Conventional brackets MBT of 0.022 in slot (McLaughlin Bennett Trevisi) prescription braces (Ortho Organizers, Carlsbad, Calif) were bonded. After alignment and levelling phase, cuspid retraction began with nitinol closed coil spring on 19 × 25 stainless steel archwire, wielding 150 gram force. 7.5 J/cm² energy was applied on 10 points (5 buccal and 5 palatal) on the canine roots on the investigational side using gallium-aluminum-arsenic diode laser (940 nm wavelength, iLase™ Biolase, Irvine, USA) in a continuous mode. Target tissues were irradiated once in three weeks for 9 weeks at a stretch (T0, T1, and T2). Patients were given a feedback form based on the numeric rating scale (NRS) to record the pain intensity for a week. Silicon impressions preceded the coil activation at each visit (T0, T1, T2, and T3), and the casts obtained were scanned with the Planmeca CAD/CAM™ (Helsinki, Finland) scanner. Results. The regimen effectively accelerated (1.55 ± 0.25 mm) tooth movement with a significant reduction in distress on the investigational side as compared to the placebo side (94 ± 0.25 mm) ( ). Conclusions. This study reveals that the thrice-weekly LLLT application can accelerate OTM and reduce the associated pain.

Studies have claimed that the maxillary arch dimension of unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) patient is significantly smaller than normal patient. Multiple factors (both congenital and post natal treatment factors) are believed to have an impact on the treatment outcome (maxillary arch retardation) of UCLP patient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of multiple factors on the treatment outcome by assessing the maxillary arch dimension of UCLP Children. Eighty-five Malaysian UCLP children were taken who received cheiloplasty and palatoplasty. Laser scanned 3D digital models of UCLP subjects were prepared before any orthodontic treatment and bone grafting at 7.69 ± 2.46 (mean± SD) years of age. Intercanine width (ICW), intermolar width (IMW), and arch depth (AD) measurements of maxillary arch were measured with Mimics software. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between multiple factors (gender, UCLP type, UCLP side, family history of cleft, family history of class III malocclusion, techniques of cheiloplasty, and techniques of palatoplasty) and maxillary arch dimensions (ICW, IMW, and AD).Pvalue was set at 5%. Significant association was found between 2 techniques of cheiloplasty and ICW (P = 0.001) and also between 2 techniques of palatoplasty and ICW (P = 0.046) of maxilla. No significant association observed in IMW and AD in relation to all other factors. Modified Millard techniques of Cheiloplasty and Bardach technique of palatoplasty had unfavorable effect on the treatment outcome by assessing the maxillary arch dimension (ICW) using laser scanned 3D digital models in Malaysian UCLP children.

This study aimed to assess the outcomes of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) with the conventional bracket (CB) and self-ligating (SL) bracket systems on root resorption (RR) during orthodontic treatment. A total of 32 patients were included in this randomized clinical trial. All the patients were randomly divided into four individual groups (SLL: self-ligating laser, CBL: conventional bracket laser, SLNL: self-ligating non-laser, CBNL: conventional bracket non-laser). RR was measured from the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) radiographs which were taken at two stages of the orthodontic treatment: pre-treatment (T1) and after leveling and alignment stage (T2). Wilcoxon rank test for the comparison was conducted to compare the RR at T1 and T2 stages within each group and showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) for various variables. Mann Whitney test compared the RR in laser and non-laser groups irrespective of the bracket systems and exhibited no significant differences except the left lateral incisor. Moreover, CB and SL groups showed no significant difference in RR among any tooth. Kruskal Wallis test was performed to compare the RR among all groups which presented no significant differences. LLLT and bracket systems have no consequences on RR until the leveling and alignment stage of orthodontic treatment.