The aim of this study was to evaluate orthodontic treatment method preferences among dentistry students, dentists and orthodontic residents taking into account factors such as esthetics, advantage/disadvantage, cost and treatment duration. The study was carried out on three groups: dentistry students (n=318), dentists (n=110) and orthodontic residents (n=98), and a 17-question survey was applied. Questionnaire forms included informational photos of conventional metal brackets (CMB), esthetic ceramic brackets (ECB), self-ligating brackets (SLB), clear aligner (CA), and lingual brackets (LB). The participants' preferences for orthodontic treatment methods were evaluated using chi-square analysis, not only between groups but also considering gender and income level. Regarding esthetics, dentists (41%) and orthodontic residents (78%) mostly preferred CA, while dentistry students mostly preferred LB (44%). With regard to advantage/disadvantage, dentistry students (31%) and dentists (39%) mostly preferred SLB, while orthodontic residents mostly preferred CA (55%). Regarding the success of the treatment, all three groups mostly preferred CMB. (respectively 50%; 47%; 72%). While CA was mostly preferred for short-term treatments in all three groups (respectively 40%; 71%; 88%), CMB was mostly preferred for long-term treatments (respectively 35%, 51%, 55%). Gender and income-level differences had little effect on orthodontic treatment method preferences. Except for long-term treatments and treatment success, there was generally great interest in CA, especially among orthodontic residents. Ceramic brackets and LB were generally the least preferred treatment methods among dentistry students, dentists, and orthodontic residents.

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the total duration of Class II malocclusion treatment with hybrid pendulum vs. buccal interradicular miniscrew supported distalization mechanics followed by fixed appliances. Molar distalization duration and end-of-the-treatment changes were also compared. The sample of this retrospective cohort study consisted of clinical records, pre-treatment (T1) and post-treatment (T2) dental models, and panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs of 80 skeletal Class I patients with bilateral Class II molar relation. Molar distalization was achieved with a hybrid pendulum in Group P (15 males, 25 females; mean age: 15.19 ± 0.32 years) and with buccal interradicular miniscrew-supported compressed sentalloy coil springs in Group B (15 males, 25 females; initial mean age: 15.65 ± 0.32 years). Following molar distalization, all patients in both groups received comprehensive fixed orthodontic treatment. Molar distalization and total treatment durations and changes in Peer Assessment Rating scores and 14 cephalometric measurements were evaluated. Statistically significant molar distalization and distal tipping, mandibular incisor protrusion, and PAR reduction were achieved in both groups, with no difference between groups. There were no significant differences between groups for total treatment (24.58 ± 5.19 months in Group B and 24.81 ± 5.33 months in Group P) and molar distalization durations (7.01 ± 2.17 months in Group B and 7.03 ± 1.42 months in Group P) (p > 0.0167). The total length of orthodontic treatment for Class II malocclusion which involved molar distalization by miniscrew supported appliances was not affected by whether the appliance was located palatally or buccally.

Background: There are a few studies evaluating dental students’ knowledge and awareness of intraoral scanners. This study aims to evaluate and compare the knowledge and awareness of levels 3 ^rd , 4 ^th, and 5 ^th -grade dental students regarding intraoral scanners and their use in orthodontics. Methods: A survey adapted from similar studies was administered to a total of 278 volunteer undergraduate students [comprising 3 ^rd (n = 94), 4 ^th (n = 88), and 5 ^th- grade (n = 96)] to assess their awareness of intraoral scanners. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, were used to analyze the variables within the scope of the study. The Fisher–Freeman–Halton exact test was employed to compare responses across different academic years. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Of the participants, 33.81% were 3 ^rd -grade, 31.65% were 4 ^th -grade, and 34.53% were 5 ^th -grade dental students. There was no significant difference in the distribution of participants across academic grades (p > 0.05). Among the students, 96.81% of the 3 ^rd -grade, 89.77% of the 4 ^th -grade, and 83.33% of the 5 ^th -grade students reported that they had never used an intraoral scanner (p < 0,05). A higher proportion of 3 ^rd -grade students (71.28%) believed that IOSs were used in the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusions and the fabrication of maxillary expansion appliances, compared to the other grade groups. In contrast, 5 ^th -grade students more frequently associated IOS usage with indirect bonding procedures (63.54%) (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Students in the 4 ^th and 5 ^th grades demonstrated a greater level of knowledge compared to 3 ^rd -grade students. It is recommended that practical training opportunities be expanded and the dental curriculum be revised accordingly to support hands-on experience with intraoral scanners.

Adult skeletal Class III malocclusions present a significant clinical challenge, particularly in borderline cases where camouflage treatment is preferred over surgical intervention. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate dentofacial changes and gender differences after camouflage treatment involving four premolar extractions in adult patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion. This retrospective cohort study included 50 adult patients (25 females; mean age: 16.34 ± 1.11 years, and 25 males; mean age: 17.61 ± 1.92 years) with skeletal Class III malocclusion (ANB < 0°) treated with the extraction of both maxillary and mandibular first premolars. These cases were diagnosed to be in the borderline surgical-orthodontic range but refused surgical treatments. Pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) lateral cephalometric radiographs and plaster dental casts were analyzed. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue measurements were obtained, and treatment quality was assessed using the Peer Assessment Rating index. Intragroup comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and intergroup comparisons were conducted with the Mann-Whitney U test (P < 0.05). At T0, most variables were comparable between genders; however, males exhibited significantly greater U1-Ls, L1-Li, Sn-Stm, Stm-Me', and Go-Me values (P < 0.05). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in PAR scores and favorable dentoalveolar and soft-tissue changes (P < 0.05). Females exhibited additional significant skeletal and profile changes (SNB°, ANB°, SN/GoGn°, Pg-Pg', CmSnLs°), whereas males showed significant upper lip retrusion (Ls-S). Intergroup comparisons revealed greater mandibular incisor retrusion (L1⊥NB) in males than in females (P < 0.05). Four-premolar extraction camouflage treatment in Class III malocclusions produced significant dentoalveolar and soft-tissue improvements in both genders. However, females demonstrated more pronounced skeletal and profile-related changes, whereas males exhibited a greater degree of mandibular incisor retrusion, indicating a more pronounced dentoalveolar compensation pattern. These findings suggest that gender-specific differences should be considered during treatment planning to optimize esthetic and functional outcomes.

Aim: Selection of an appropriate archwire form is critical for maintaining the natural dental arch and ensuring post-treatment stability. Preformed copper-nickel-titanium (CuNiTi) archwires are widely used in contemporary orthodontics and are often designed with broader arch forms. This study aimed to determine the average mandibular dental arch dimensions to compare them with those of preformed CuNiTi archwires.Materials and Methods: Three-dimensional intraoral scans of 44 individuals with untreated class I malocclusion and minimal crowding/diastema were evaluated. Mandibular intercanine and intermolar widths, as well as canine and molar arch depths, were measured using a bracket slot point-based reference system. Eleven commonly used preformed CuNiTi archwires from five manufacturers were selected, and their corresponding dimensions were measured. Differences between individual dental arch measurements and corresponding archwire dimensions were analyzed using one-sample t-tests, with p < 0.05 as the level of statistical significance.Results: All evaluated preformed CuNiTi archwires differed significantly from the natural mandibular intercanine width (p 0.05), whereas the remaining archwires demonstrated significant discrepancies.Conclusion: None of the evaluated archwires matched the intercanine width, and limited compatibility was observed in the intermolar region. These findings suggest that dimensional discrepancies are mainly concentrated in the intercanine region, emphasizing the importance of individualized archwire selection to preserve mandibular arch stability.