Background and Objectives: Odontogenic sinusitis is a frequently underestimated pathology with fewer symptoms in patients with periapical lesions, periodontal disease, or iatrogenic foreign bodies in the maxillary sinus. The aim of our study was to determine the correlation between maxillary sinusitis and periapical lesions using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging and histological and immunohistochemical investigations. Materials and Methods: A total of 1450 initial patients diagnosed with maxillary sinusitis in the Ear-Nose-Throat (ENT) Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa” Iasi, Romania, were treated with anti-inflammatory drugs. Of these, 629 still had unresolved symptomatology and were later referred to the Dental Medicine departments for further investigations. Only 50 subjects with periapical lesions in the premolar/molar maxillary area were included in the present study. All the periapical lesions were observed on CBCT and classified using the Periapical Status Index (PSI) and the mean maxillary sinus mucosa thicknesses (MSMT). The enrolled patients underwent surgical procedures with the excision of periapical lesions. The excised samples were submitted to the histological and immunohistochemical investigations. Results: The 50 patients presented periapical lesions of their maxillary teeth in 328 dental units. There was a higher prevalence of periapical lesions in men than in women (chi-square test). We observed a significant difference between the mean MSMT of individuals with periapical lesions compared to those without (p < 0.01). Mean MSMT was 1.23 mm for teeth without periapical lesions and 3.95 mm for teeth with periapical lesions. The histopathological study identified 50% cases with periapical granulomas, 10% cases with periapical granulomas with cystic potential, and 40% cases as periapical cysts. Immunohistochemical stainings showed that CD4+ helper and CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes, along with CD20+ B lymphocytes and CD68+ macrophages, were diffusely distributed in all periapical cysts and in some periapical granulomas, but CD79α+ plasma cells characterized especially periapical granulomas. Conclusions: The current study observed a significant correlation between CBCT maxillary mucosa thickness and type of periapical lesion. Chronic inflammatory lympho-histiocytic infiltrate predominates in periapical lesions, supporting the idea that lesion progression is determined by a humoral-type (CD20+ and CD79α+ B lymphocytes) but also by a cellular-type (CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocyte population) immune mechanism.

Background and Objectives: Orthodontic treatment aims to enhance dental aesthetics and function, yet many patients report dissatisfaction. This study was designed with the following objectives: To assess overall patient satisfaction during active orthodontic treatment; to identify key psychosocial and clinical predictors of satisfaction, including self-confidence, social experiences, and cost perception; to evaluate the impact of orthodontist–patient communication on satisfaction and perceived treatment outcomes; to explore the relationship between aesthetic improvement and willingness to undergo treatment again. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using structured questionnaires to assess satisfaction, pain perception, treatment expectations, and communication quality. Statistical analyses, including correlations and regression models, were used to identify predictors of satisfaction. The study included 450 orthodontic patients from the north-eastern region of Romania, undergoing active treatment at the time of data collection. Results: The strongest predictor of satisfaction was improved self-confidence and smile aesthetics (r = 0.62). Effective communication with orthodontists significantly increased satisfaction (r = 0.58, p = 0.002), while perceived high costs had a negative impact (r = −0.41). Pain and discomfort were common, with 90% of patients experiencing treatment-related pain, leading to reduced compliance. Social embarrassment due to braces also contributed to dissatisfaction (r = −0.47). Conclusions: Patient satisfaction with orthodontic treatment is primarily influenced by aesthetic improvements and effective communication. While enhanced smile perception boosts confidence, financial concerns and social discomfort may negatively affect the overall experience. Improving accessibility to treatment and providing comprehensive patient support are essential for optimizing patient satisfaction.

Background/Objectives: This study evaluated the influence of key biomechanical parameters—orthodontic force magnitude, loading direction, and insertion depth—on stress and strain distribution in orthodontic mini-implants using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEM). Methods: A three-dimensional model of a titanium orthodontic mini-implant inserted into a mandibular bone segment was developed and analyzed under varying force magnitudes (1–10 N), loading directions (30°, 45°, and 60°), and insertion depths (2–4 mm). Cortical and cancellous bone components were included, and static loading conditions were applied using simplified, linear elastic material assumptions. Results: Stress and strain levels increased with higher force magnitudes, with implant stresses approaching critical values at loads above 9 N. Cortical bone stresses remained within physiological limits, whereas cancellous bone exceeded the microdamage strain threshold at forces greater than 3 N. A 60° loading direction reduced implant bending and strain, while deeper insertion significantly decreased strain and displacement, indicating improved primary stability. Conclusions: Within the limits of this computational model, optimal mechanical behavior was observed under 1–3 N forces, a 60° loading direction, and a 2–4 mm insertion depth. Loads above 9 N approached fatigue and interfacial risk. These findings provide computational insight into the biomechanical behavior of orthodontic mini-implants under the modeled conditions.

Background/Objectives: This study evaluated the influence of key biomechanical pa-rameters—orthodontic force magnitude, loading direction, and insertion depth—on stress and strain distribution in orthodontic mini-implants using three-dimensional fi-nite element analysis (FEM). Methods: A three-dimensional model of a titanium or-thodontic mini-implant inserted into a mandibular bone segment was developed and analyzed under varying force magnitudes (1–10 N), loading directions (30°, 45°, and 60°), and insertion depths (5–7 mm). Cortical and cancellous bone components were included, and static loading conditions were applied using simplified, linear elastic material assumptions. Results: Stress and strain levels increased with higher force magnitudes, with implant stresses approaching critical values at loads above 9 N. Cor-tical bone stresses remained within physiological limits, whereas cancellous bone ex-ceeded damage thresholds at forces greater than 3 N. A 60° loading direction reduced implant bending and strain, while deeper insertion significantly decreased strain and displacement, indicating improved primary stability. Conclusions: Optimal mechani-cal behavior occurred under 1–3 N forces, 60° loading direction, and 6–7 mm insertion depth. Loads above 9 N approached fatigue and interfacial risk. These findings align with prior experimental evidence and provide quantitative guidance for.

Background/Objectives: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) complement clinical indicators in orthodontics, yet validated instruments for children undergoing removable orthodontic treatment remain limited. This study aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire assessing compliance and physical discomfort, psychosocial impact, and perceived support. Methods: A cross-sectional validation study included 250 children and adolescents (<14 years) treated with removable orthodontic appliances, regardless of treatment duration. The 14-item questionnaire was evaluated for internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC), item discrimination (ANOVA), and construct validity using exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation. Sampling adequacy was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Results: Internal consistency was satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.747–0.823), with corrected item–total correlations above 0.30. ICC values indicated moderate reliability for single measures and good reliability for average measures. The KMO value was 0.713, and Bartlett’s test was significant (p < 0.001). Three factors explained 58.69% of the total variance, representing psychosocial impact, compliance/discomfort, and perceived support. Conclusions: The questionnaire demonstrated satisfactory reliability and construct validity for assessing patient-reported outcomes in children undergoing removable orthodontic treatment. It provides a practical instrument for evaluating compliance and physical discomfort, psychosocial impact, and perceived support in both clinical practice and research.