Three-dimensional technologies are one of the most recent and relevant advancements in the field of Dentistry. These systems, including intraoral scans, 3D imaging exams (CAT scan, CBCT and MRI), CAD/CAM 3D printing devices and 3D computer software, have enabled clinicians to greatly improve patient care along with reducing treatment planning time. The present descriptive study aims to explore possible applications of 3D technologies during the diagnosis, treatment plan, case monitoring and result assessment in orthodontics. The overall upgrade provided by these technologies can improve the clinicians’ workflow and effectiveness by simplifying conventional techniques considered to be especially arduous.

Three-dimensional (3D) resin medical-dental devices have been increasingly used in recent years after the emergence of digital technologies. In Orthodontics, therapies with aligners have gained popularity, mainly due to the aggressive promotion policies developed by the industry. However, their systemic effects are largely unknown, with few studies evaluating the systemic toxicity of these materials. The release of bisphenol A and other residual monomers have cytotoxic, genotoxic, and estrogenic effects. This systematic review aims to analyze the release of toxic substances from 3D resins used in Orthodontics and their toxic systemic effects systematically. The PICO question asked was, “Does the use of 3D resins in orthodontic devices induce cytotoxic effects or changes in estrogen levels?”. The search was carried out in several databases and according to PRISMA guidelines. In vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies were included. The in vitro studies’ risk of bias was assessed using the guidelines for the reporting of pre-clinical studies on dental materials by Faggion Jr. For the in vivo studies, the SYRCLE risk of bias tool was used, and for the clinical studies, the Cochrane tool. A total of 400 articles retrieved from the databases were initially scrutinized. Fourteen articles were included for qualitative analysis. The risk of bias was considered medium to high. Cytotoxic effects or estrogen levels cannot be confirmed based on the limited preliminary evidence given by in vitro studies. Evidence of the release of bisphenol A and other monomers from 3D resin devices, either in vitro or clinical studies, remains ambiguous. The few robust results in the current literature demonstrate the absolute need for further studies, especially given the possible implications for the young patient’s fertility, which constitutes one of the largest groups of patients using these orthodontic devices.

Background: There has been an increase in demand for orthodontic treatment within the adult population, who likely receive restorative treatments using ceramic structures. The current state of the art regarding the most effective method to achieve an appropriate bond strength of brackets on ceramic surfaces isn’t consensual. This systematic review aims to compare the available surface treatments to ceramics and determine the one that allows to obtain the best bond strength. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and the PICO methodology was used, with the question “What is the most effective technique for bonding brackets on ceramic crowns or veneers?”. The research was carried out in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. In vitro and ex vivo studies were included. The methodological quality was evaluated using the guidelines for reporting of preclinical studies on dental materials by Faggion Jr. Results: A total of 655 articles searched in various databases were initially scrutinized. Sevety one articles were chosen for quality analysis. The risk of bias was considered medium to high in most studies. The use of hydrofluoric acid (HF), silane and laser afforded the overall best results. HF and HF plus laser achieved significantly highest bond strength scores in felsdphatic porcelain, while laser was the best treatment in lithium disilicate ceramics. Conclusions: The most effective technique for bonding brackets on ceramic is dependent on the type of ceramic.

(1) Background: Mandibular deficiency is one of the most common growth disorders of the facial skeleton. Recently, distraction osteogenesis has been suggested as the treatment of choice for overcoming the limitations of conventional orthognathic surgery; (2) Methods: A new custom-manufactured dental-anchored distractor was built and anchored in the first molar and lower canine. It consists of a stainless-steel disjunction screw, adapted and welded to the orthodontic bands through two 1.2 mm diameter connector bars with a universal silver-based and cadmium-free solder; (3) Results: The distractor described can be a useful tool to correct mandibular retrognathia and is better tolerated by patients, especially in severe cases; (4) Conclusions: The dental-anchored distractor increases the anterior mandibular bone segment without affecting the gonial angle or transverse angulation of the segments and avoids posterior mandibular rotation, overcoming the limitations of conventional surgical treatment.

Oronasal fistula can persist after conventional secondary alveolar bone graft surgery, which may lead to functional issues, such as regurgitation of fluids from the oral to the nasal cavity. This manuscript describes a clinical case of a patient with a bilateral cleft lip and palate that underwent tongue graft surgery for closure of an oronasal fistula after three failed local mucosa flap surgeries. The multidisciplinary treatment was comprised of orthodontic treatment, mucosa and alveolar grafts for palate closure and aesthetic rehabilitation of the anterior maxillary teeth. Smile aesthetics were noticeably improved, enhancing the patient’s self-perception and confidence.

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess caries-related indicators (DMFT and ICDAS indices), plaque index, salivary pH and buffering capacity, and dietary and oral hygiene habits in patients with cleft lip and/or palate undergoing orthodontic treatment, compared with a control group of healthy patients. Methods: This pilot case–control study included 26 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment, 13 patients with cleft lip and/or palate and 13 healthy individuals. The following variables were assessed: diet and oral hygiene through a questionnaire; salivary pH and buffering capacity; caries risk, using the DMFT and ICDAS indices; and plaque index, using the ImageJ Software. Results: No statistically significant differences were detected in the DMFT index, salivary pH, and plaque index; nor in the diet, oral hygiene and salivary buffering capacity. A slightly higher plaque index was observed in patients with cleft lip and/or palate compared to healthy patients. There was a statistically significant difference in the location of plaque, with a higher incidence in the upper central incisors in the study group. Conclusion: This pilot study suggests no statistically significant differences in the DMFT index, plaque index, salivary pH, and buffering capacity between patients with cleft lip and/or palate and healthy controls undergoing orthodontic treatment. However, a higher incidence of bacterial plaque on the upper central incisors was observed in patients with cleft lip and/or palate.