Introduction: Anterior crossbite (AC) is defined as a reverse sagittal relationship between maxillary and mandibular incisors. According to an evidence-based orthodontic triage, the treatment need of AC is indicated if any occlusal interference is forcing the mandible towards a Class III growth pattern. Removable and fixed appliances have been suggested to correct AC. Objective: The present report aims at presenting the benefits of an alternative therapy for the early treatment of anterior crossbite using clear aligners. Methods: Two cases of anterior crossbite corrected using clear aligners in 8-years-old children are presented. Results: In both cases, AC was successfully corrected within 5 months. At the end of the treatment, overjet and overbite were corrected. No major discomfort or speech impairment was noticed by the parents. Conclusions: Due to the perceived shortcomings of alternative approaches, the use of clear aligners for correcting AC in mixed dentition should be considered as a comfortable and well tolerated appliance for young patients.

The interceptive treatment of Class II malocclusion using clear aligners is still debatable. This retrospective study analyzes the short-term occlusal and cephalometric effects in 40 growing patients with Class II malocclusion. The sample was divided into 2 groups: Following the dentoalveolar expansion protocol, the first group was treated with clear aligners (GI). The second group was untreated (GN). Dental arches were scanned before and 1 year after the therapy. Similarly, linear measurements on digital casts and cephalometric ones on lateral X-rays were compared. Maxillary (Lmax), mandibular intermolar length (Lmand), and posterior transverse intermolar discrepancy (DIT) were evaluated. The distance between the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar and the buccal groove of the first lower molar was considered at both sides (Cdx and Csx). The statistical descriptive analysis of T0 and T1 values was performed using a paired t-test, setting a p value < 0.05. A greater improvement in molar and skeletal Class II parameters in the GI group compared to the GN group was detected. Specifically, in GI, Lmax improved by 3.3 mm, Lmand by 1.1 mm, and DIT improved from − 2.1 mm to 0.1 mm, while Cdx and Csx decreased by 1.28 mm and 1.13 mm, respectively. In contrast, the GN group showed smaller improvements, with Lmax increasing by 1 mm, Lmand by 0.8 mm, DIT improving from − 2 mm to -1.8 mm, and both Cdx and Csx exhibiting slight increases of 0.04 mm and 0.09 mm, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding divergence or the correlation between skeletal and dental measurements. Dentoalveolar expansion using Invisalign First appears effective and predictable with better outcomes than the control group. An improvement of skeletal Class II is detected in the treated group with dental improvements on maxillary arch.

Background: Orthodontically driven osteogenesis (ODO) is a surgical tunnel modification of periodontally accelerated osteogenic orthodontics (PAOO), combining selective corticotomy with bone grafting in sequential and/or segmental fashion. This is a minimally invasive approach that enhances periodontal health and allows orthodontic tooth movement beyond the original alveolar envelope. Considering the lack of long-term three-dimensional data on orthodontically driven osteogenesis (ODO), this study aims to quantitatively assess the long-term stability of alveolar bone and buccal cortical thickness following ODO, using CBCT imaging. The null hypothesis is that ODO does not result in significant changes in alveolar bone volume or cortical thickness over a seven-year follow-up period. Methods: Twenty patients (13 females, 7 males; mean age 27.4 ± 5.3 years) who had undergone orthodontically driven osteogenesis (ODO) using a minimally invasive tunnel approach and segmental corticotomy protocol followed by clear aligner therapy were retrospectively evaluated. The mean follow-up period after treatment was 7 years (range: 5–15 years). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were obtained at one year postoperatively (T1) and again at the long-term follow-up visit (T2). Buccal bone thickness measurements were taken at standardized levels (3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction) and compared between T1 and T2 to evaluate bone stability over time. In addition, histologic evaluation of the previously grafted area was performed in two patients: one sample was collected during an alveolar ridge augmentation procedure six months after ODO, and the other during orthognathic surgery eight months after ODO. The samples were analyzed to assess new bone formation and integration of graft material. Results: Radiographic analysis showed long term stability of the new bone support. Histologic examination showed newly formed lamellar and reticular bone. Bone marrow showed no inflammatory infiltration, and bone particles were still detectable but incorporated in the newly created bone. Conclusions: Based on these findings, ODO appears to be a promising technique that could induce stable bone osteogenesis. A larger cohort study can enhance the evidence of these promising results to popularize this technique.

Background/Objectives: Direct-to-Consumer Orthodontics (DTCO) has gained popularity through social media, offering clear aligner treatments without in-person supervision. However, there is limited research on the related user experiences, satisfaction, and complications, particularly in Spain. This study aimed to evaluate user experiences, satisfaction levels, and complications associated with DTCO in a sample of Spanish consumers. Additionally, differences among major DTCO providers were analyzed. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted over one year. This questionnaire, adapted from previous studies and reviewed by certified orthodontists, assessed user awareness, reasons for treatment selection, communication with providers, discomfort, complications, and satisfaction. A total of 101 valid responses were analyzed using statistical means. Results: The majority of respondents reported that their expectations were not met, and they would not recommend DTCO. Cost was the primary motivation for treatment selection, followed by convenience. Many users experienced complications, leading to dental consultations. While overall satisfaction levels did not significantly differ among providers, variations were observed in discomfort levels, in-person care availability, and the need for additional consultations. Conclusions: DTCO offers affordability and convenience but raises concerns regarding treatment quality and supervision. In most cases, users’ expectations were not met, highlighting the need for greater patient education and regulatory oversight.