The aim was to compare the soft tissue changes in pretreatment and posttreatment facial scans of patients who had undergone various orthopedic treatments vs a control group of untreated growing patients. Facial scans were performed before (T0) and after (T1) orthopedic treatment in 15 patients prescribed rapid palatal expander (RPE), 15 cervical headgear (HG), and 15 facemasks (FM), as well as 6 months apart in 15 untreated growing patients. After best-fit scan alignment using Geometric Control X software (3D Systems Inc, Rock Hill, SC), a 3-dimensional (3D) analysis of soft tissue changes was performed, comparing 3D reference points (total 22) and 8 areas on T0 and T1 scans. Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric tests and pairwise comparison with Bonferroni's correction were applied to identify any statistically significant differences among groups (P <0.05). All analyses were conducted with SPSS software (version 28; IBM, Armonk, NY). At T1, reduced soft tissue projection was found at the nose and upper lip in the HG group, the lower lip in the HG and RPE groups, and the chin in the FM and RPE groups. The RPE group displayed a statistically significant increase in facial divergence, confirmed by gnathion position (RPE vs FM [P = 0.018] and RPE vs control [P = 0.046]), as well as an increase in the soft tissue projection of both cheeks (left cheek in range of 1-2 mm [P = 0.030] and range of 0 to -1 mm [P = 0.022]; right cheek in range of 1-2 mm [P = 0.003] and range -1 to -2 mm [P = 0.001]). There were no clinically significant differences among groups in mandibular right and left body areas. The 3D facial analysis revealed significant differences in soft tissues among orthopedic treatments, especially at the upper and lower lip and chin areas, as compared with untreated patients.

Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the slot height of in-house 3D-printed resin brackets, comparing them with other types of brackets on the market today, both ceramic and metallic. Methods: Seven different types of bracket systems were selected. For each system, ten brackets for tooth 2.1 with 0.022 × 0.028-inch slots were selected (total n° 70). Considering the whole sample, five types were commercially available and two were in-house 3D-printed. The entire sample was divided into four different groups according to the bracket material and the method of holding the archwire. Precision pin gauges with 0.002-mm increments were inserted inside the slot of each bracket, and the slot heights were measured, microscopically ensuring that the gauge completely filled the slot, with full contact between both the bottom and the top of the slot. Results: With respect to the other five types of brackets on the market, the two types of in-house 3D-printed resin brackets showed great accuracy of slot height (0.558 ± 0.001 mm). There was a statistically significant difference between the real height measured and the nominal height declared by the manufacturers (p < 0.05) of all the samples investigated, with the exception of in-house 3D-printed resin brackets. Furthermore, the difference in slot height accuracy between commercially manufactured and in-house 3D-printed resin brackets was statistically significant. Conclusions: In-house 3D-printed resin brackets have a remarkably precise slot height, unlike commercially available brackets, whose slot heights tend to be significantly oversized with respect to the nominal values declared by the manufacturers.

(1) Background: Clear aligners are favored for their aesthetics in orthodontics, with newer 3D-printed technologies allowing the design of aligners with differential thicknesses and materials, offering advantages in terms of force distribution on the teeth, thereby optimizing treatment biomechanics. This study aimed to compare the initial and final forces of three types of 3D-printed aligners (with different thickness gradients and gingival margins) and traditional thermoformed aligners (with different gingival margins), evaluating stress relaxation and force consistency to determine which material and configuration may be optimal for better force distribution; (2) Methods: Twenty-seven 3D-printed aligners with three design variations and 18 thermoformed aligners were analyzed. Customized models were used to assess force at specific points on the upper incisor (1.1) and molar (2.6). A 3 h stress-relaxation test was conducted at 37 °C, and force data were recorded every second using a motorized compression stand. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA, post hoc tests, and Kruskal–Wallis tests for comparisons; (3) Results and Conclusions: Aligners with vertical and horizontal thickness gradients and a gingival margin trimmed 2 mm above the gingival contour exerted the highest forces, particularly at incisal/occlusal points. No significant differences in stress relaxation were observed. The force applied to the molars was consistently higher than the force applied to the incisors. These 3D-printed aligners with both horizontal and vertical gradients may offer a viable alternative to thermoformed aligners.

Background: Retention is a critical aspect of orthodontic treatment with aligners as it counteracts vertical displacing forces and ensures greater predictability of tooth movement. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the retention effectiveness of 3D-printed aligners and thermoformed aligners, analyzing how margin design and thickness gradients affect retention under different occlusal conditions. Methods: Tensile tests were conducted using a Sauter TVO-A01 machine, recording the force required to displace each aligner from the models. Quantitative data on the retention force of each aligner were collected based on malocclusion type and design specifics. Results: Scalloped thermoformed aligners demonstrated significantly lower retention values (p = 0.029) compared to 3D-printed aligners with high margins with horizontal and vertical gradients. Scalloped margin aligners exhibited significantly lower retention values (p = 0.008) compared to straight margin aligners. Additionally, 3D-printed aligners with uniform thickness gradients had significantly lower retention values (p = 0.040) compared to thermoformed aligners. Conclusions: The 3D printing production process enables customizable designs tailored to the unique characteristics of each patient. High-margin 3d-printed aligners with horizontal and vertical gradients provide superior retention, particularly in complex clinical situations such as dental crowding.

This case report describes the camouflage treatment of an adult patient with hyperdivergent facial pattern presenting with severe Class II skeletal malocclusion, through the use of a hybrid clear aligner approach, that relies on both a partial lingual fixed appliance and the continuous use of Class II elastics throughout therapy. After 11 months of treatment, the goals had been achieved, highlighting that the correct diagnostic framework, proper patient selection and careful digital planning of a compromise treatment can provide satisfactory aesthetic and functional outcomes.

Luca Brucculeri, Federica Pellitteri, Alfredo Salvatore Monterossi, Emanuele Paoletto, Giuliano Maino, Luca Lombardo. Korean J Orthod -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod23.270