Objective: To evaluate and compare the skeletal vertical and sagittal effects of the Hyrax expander in Class I, II, and III patients. Materials and Methods: One hundred and eighty-three patients (91 females, 92 males) with a mean age of 8.7 years and with maxillary bilateral cross-bite and maxillary hypoplasia were analyzed retrospectively. They were divided into three groups according to their skeletal class. Sixty-five patients were skeletal Class I, 55 were skeletal Class II, and 63 were skeletal Class III. For each patient a lateral cephalogram was obtained before treatment and at the end of the retention period. Changes in the groups during the observation period were calculated, compared, and statistically analyzed with a t-test. Results: In terms of vertical effects, a statistically significant increase in the anterior vertical dimension was observed only in Class III patients. No statistically significant changes were observed in the posterior vertical dimension in any of the groups. In terms of sagittal effects, in Class I patients the maxilla and the mandible moved forward, but not in a statistically significant way, and the ANB angle showed a statistically significant decrease, but its change was less modified. In Class II patients the maxilla moved forward, but not in a statistically significant way, while the mandible moved forward in all of the patients in a statistically significant manner. The ANB decreased, statistically improving the skeletal classification. In Class III patients the maxilla moved forward in a statistically significant manner; the mandible showed a downward and backward rotation, improving the skeletal classification. Conclusions: The data obtained in this study permit us to confirm that rapid maxillary expansion can be used in all of the skeletal classes with good vertical and sagittal results.

The aim of this study was twofold: 1) to asses the effects of a functional appliance on condyles damaged by juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). and 2) to evaluate its ability to reduce alterations in craniofacial development.Study design: Seventy-two JIA patients with temporomandibular involvement, ages ranging between 4 and 16 years, were treated. All of them presented temporomandibular joint involvement. They were treated with an activator and followed for 4 years. Results: At the second examination, it was possible to observe a reduction in mandibular retrusion and in the sagittal discrepancy between mandible and maxilla, a reduction in the angle of divergence, a counterclockwise rotation of the mandible, a reduction of the gonial angle, a longer mandibular ramus, a reduction in the discrepancy between anterior and posterior height caused by an increase in posterior height and a forward positioning of the chin. Conclusion: The functional appliance reduces the severity of facial alterations improving mandibular and condylar growth.

The aim of this retrospective study was to cephalometrically evaluate and compare the skeletal and dental effects of a transverse sagittal maxillary expander (TSME) and a Hyrax-type expander (RME) in children with maxillary hypoplasia. Fifty subjects (26 males and 24 females), aged from 6 to 15 years, with a maxillary crossbite caused by basal apical narrowness, were divided into two equal groups. Twenty-five were treated with a TSME and the other 25 with a RME. For each patient, a lateral cephalogram was obtained before treatment (T0) and at the end of the retention period (T1). Changes in the two groups during the observation period were calculated, compared, and statistically analysed with a paired samples t -test. In the TSME group, SNP–A, I SN, and I FH and in the RME group SN–SNP.SNA, N–Me, and U6.PP displayed a statistically significant increase (P < 0.05). The increase in SNP–A, I SN, and I FH in the TSME group was significantly greater following treatment than in the RME group. The results support the use of the TSME to produce skeletal changes and dentoalveolar modification and to correct maxillary hypoplasia. It was also demonstrated that in patients with an anterior open bite, the use of the TSME is not contraindicated as the anterior vertical dimension did not increase significantly.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of orthodontic treatment on the same patients using aligners (upper arch) versus traditional fixed appliances (lower arch) on oral hygiene and periodontal health. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 patients, all treated by the same orthodontist and with an average age of 26 years, were included in the study. The research focused on factors predisposing patients to periodontitis, as well as plaque and tartar accumulation. Statistical analysis was performed using the paired-samples Student’s t-test, with values of p < 0.05 deemed statistically significant. Results: Patients treated with fixed orthodontic appliances generally showed increased plaque accumulation (+10% PI) and a decline in periodontal health compared to those treated with aligners (40% presented a high level of S.Mutans and Lactobacilli). In patients who did not maintain proper oral hygiene, the initial conditions of the upper arch remained stable, while the lower arch exhibited significant deterioration, with increased plaque buildup and greater tissue inflammation. Conclusions: The findings emphasize the critical role of individual oral hygiene practices during orthodontic treatment in preserving periodontal health. Aligners appear to be more favorable in protecting periodontal tissues, improving plaque control, and reducing gingival inflammation. Various supplementary approaches for plaque management and microbial colonization in saliva should be implemented based on the type of orthodontic appliance used.