The recent introduction of three-dimensional (3D) printing is revolutionizing dentistry and is even being applied to orthodontic treatment of malocclusion. Clear, personalized, removable aligners are a suitable alternative to conventional orthodontic appliances, offering a more comfortable and efficient solution for patients. Including improved oral hygiene and aesthetics during treatment. Contemporarily, clear aligners are produced by a thermoforming process using various types of thermoplastic materials. The thermoforming procedure alters the properties of the material, and the intraoral environment further modifies the properties of a clear aligner, affecting overall performance of the material. Direct 3D printing offers the creation of highly precise clear aligners with soft edges, digitally designed and identically reproduced for an entire set of treatment aligners; offering a better fit, higher efficacy, and reproducibility. Despite the known benefits of 3D printing and the popularity of its dental applications, very limited technical and clinical data are available in the literature about directly printed clear aligners. The present article discusses the advantages of 3D printed aligners in comparison to thermoformed ones, describes the current state of the art, including a discussion of the possible road blocks that exist such as a current lack of approved and marketed materials and limited existence of aligner specific software. The present review suggests the suitability of 3D direct printed aligners is superior to that of thermoformed manufactured aligners because of the prior’s increased accuracy, load resistance, and lower deformation. It is an overall more stable way to produce an aligner where submillimeter movements can make a difference in treatment outcome. Direct 3D printing represents a complex method to control the thickness of the aligner and therefore has a better ability to control the force vectors that are used to produce tooth movement. There is currently no other approved material on the market that can do this. The conclusion of this article is that we encourage further in vitro and in vivo studies to test these new technologies and materials.

Objectives: The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the accuracy of automated landmarking using deep learning in comparison with manual tracing for cephalometric analysis of 3D medical images. Methods: PubMed/Medline, IEEE Xplore, Scopus and ArXiv electronic databases were searched. Selection criteria were: ex vivo and in vivo volumetric data images suitable for 3D landmarking (Problem), a minimum of five automated landmarking performed by deep learning method (Intervention), manual landmarking (Comparison), and mean accuracy, in mm, between manual and automated landmarking (Outcome). QUADAS-2 was adapted for quality analysis. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that reported as outcome mean values and standard deviation of the difference (error) between manual and automated landmarking. Linear regression plots were used to analyze correlations between mean accuracy and year of publication. Results: The initial electronic screening yielded 252 papers published between 2020 and 2022. A total of 15 studies were included for the qualitative synthesis, whereas 11 studies were used for the meta-analysis. Overall random effect model revealed a mean value of 2.44 mm, with a high heterogeneity (I² = 98.13%, τ² = 1.018, p-value < 0.001); risk of bias was high due to the presence of issues for several domains per study. Meta-regression indicated a significant relation between mean error and year of publication (p value = 0.012). Conclusion: Deep learning algorithms showed an excellent accuracy for automated 3D cephalometric landmarking. In the last two years promising algorithms have been developed and improvements in landmarks annotation accuracy have been done.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of distalizing maxillary first molars (U6) by temporary anchorage devices (TADs) according to their location (palatal, buccal, and zygomatic), their number, and appliance design. Materials and Methods: An electronic search of maxillary molar distalization with TADs was done through April 2023. After study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment, meta-analyses were performed for the extent of distalization, distal tipping, and vertical movement of U6 using the generic inverse variance and random-effects model. The significance level was set at 0.05. Results: Forty studies met the inclusion criteria: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 13 prospective studies, and 23 retrospective studies (total of 1182 patients). Distalization of the U6 was not significantly greater ( P = .64) by palatal (3.74 mm) and zygomatic (3.68 mm) than by buccal (3.23 mm) TADs. Distal tipping was significantly higher ( P < .001) in nonrigid (9.84°) than in rigid (1.97°) appliances. Vertical movement was mostly intrusive and higher but not significantly different ( P = .28) in zygomatic anchorage (−1.16 mm). Conclusions: Distalization of U6 with TADs can be an effective and stable treatment procedure, especially when performed with rigid palatal appliances. However, further RCTs or prospective cohort studies are strongly recommended to provide more clinical evidence.

Aim: To compare directly printed aligners (DPA) and thermoformed aligners (TFA), evaluating the potential release and dispersion of microplastic (MP) and nanoplastic (NP) particles under simulated oral conditions. Materials and methods: DPA samples (Graphy Tera Harz TC-85-DAC resin) and TFA samples (Invisalign® SmartTrack) were subjected to rubs in an ultrapure water bath. The liquid was collected post-friction and analyzed for MPs and NPs using various techniques: optical microscopy (OM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Also, plastic residues were quantified by weighing after drying within a laminar flow hood. Microscopic image analyses comprised the quantification of the average size of MPs and NPs, their concentration by TEM, and the roughness analysis by AFM. Results: The masses of MPs and NPs separated after rubbing were 0.001 g/200 µl and 0.004 g/200 µl for TFA and DPA samples, respectively. TEM analysis confirmed that DPA samples had larger (203.08 ± 2651.65 μm²) and more numerous particles compared to TFA (0.23 ± 27.53 μm²), even though it was not possible to distinguish the MPs and NPs due to clustering of the plastic residuals. AFM analysis indicated a bigger root mean square grain size for TFA than DPA; similarly, the mean roughness was lesser in the DPA sample than TFA one. Conclusions: DPA generated larger and more numerous plastic particles compared to TFA, though grain-size characterization was challenging due to particle aggregation. This suggests that the manufacturing process and materials used in DPA could impact the creation of MPs and NPs during simulated mastication, highlighting a potential area for process optimization.

The aim of the present study was to compare skeletal and dental changes after rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and slow maxillary expansion (SME) performed by a Leaf Expander (LE) with upper deciduous teeth as anchorage and using 3D CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) analysis. Mixed dentition patients were randomly divided in two groups, according to the different expansion used anchored on maxillary primary second molars: the RME group (n = 16) was treated with a Hyrax type expander, whereas the SME group (n = 16) was treated with an LE expander. CBCT scans were performed before (T1) and after treatment (T2) and analyzed with a custom landmarks system. A paired t-test was used for intragroup analysis between T1 and T2, and a Student t-test was used for intergroup analysis; statistical significance was set at 0.05. Both RME and SME groups showed a statistically significant increase in dental and skeletal diameters. Group comparisons between T1 and T2 showed a significant expansion rate in the RME group for upper permanent molars (p = 0.025) but not for deciduous molars (p = 0.790). Moreover, RME showed higher increases for skeletal expansion evaluated at nasal walls (p = 0.041), whereas at pterygoid plates did not show any significant differences compared with the SME group (p = 0.849). A significant transverse expansion could be achieved with the expander anchored on deciduous teeth. RME and SME produced effective both skeletal and dentoalveolar transverse expansion; RME produced more anterior expansion than SME but less control regarding the permanent molar decompensation. SME by LE therefore could be an efficient and helpful alternative in the treatment of transverse maxillary deficiency in growing patients.