One of the most controversial issues in treatment planning of class III malocclusion patients is the choice between orthodontic camouflage and orthognathic surgery. Our aim was to delineate diagnostic measures in borderline class III cases for choosing proper treatment. The pretreatment lateral cephalograms of 65 patients exhibiting moderate skeletal class III were analyzed. The camouflage group comprised of 36 patients with the mean age of 23.5 (SD 4.8), and the surgery group comprised of 29 patients with the mean age of 24.8 years (SD 3.1). The camouflage treatment consisted of flaring of the upper incisors and retraction of the lower incisors, and the surgical group was corrected by setback of the mandible, maxillary advancement, or bimaxillary surgery. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the variables between the two groups. Stepwise discriminant analysis was applied to identify the dentoskeletal variables that best separate the groups. Holdaway H angle and Wits appraisal were able to differentiate between the patients suitable for orthodontic camouflage or surgical treatment. Cases with a Holdaway angle greater than 10.3° and Wits appraisal greater than − 5.8 mm would be treated successfully by camouflage, while those with a Holdaway angle of less than 10.3° and with Wits appraisal less than − 5.8 mm can be treated surgically. Based on this model, 81.5% of our patients were properly classified. Holdaway H angle and Wits appraisal can be used as a critical diagnostic parameter for determining the treatment modality in class III borderline cases.

To evaluate differences between orthodontists and general dentists in experience with clear aligners (CA), patients’ demand and perception, types of patients, and malocclusion treated with CA and to compare the two groups of clinicians not using CA in their practice. A Web-based survey was developed and sent to the 129 members of the European Aligner Society and randomly to 200 doctors of dental surgery by e-mail. They responded on demographics and to one of two different parts for clinicians using CA or not using CA. Statistical analysis was performed with SAS EGv.6.1. The response rate was 74%. Among the total of respondents, the majority reported utilizing CA in their practice with a greater percentage of orthodontists (P = 0.0040). Overall, orthodontists learned more about CA during academic seminars comparing to general dentists, and they treated more class I with crowding (P = 0.0002) and with open bite (P = 0.0462). The majority of patients treated with CA were female and adults with a full-time employment, and the patients’ knowledge about CA treatment was mainly provided by information from external media advertising. For respondents not using CA, orthodontists were more likely to report that CA limit treatment outcomes, whereas general practitioners were reported not having enough experience to use them. There were some significant differences between orthodontists and general dentists mainly in experience and case selection for clinicians using CA as well as in the reasons provided for not using CA in their practice.

Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the actual space obtained through interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) compared to the amount of IPR planned through the digital setup during clear aligner treatment (CAT). Materials and methods: A total of 10 clinicians were randomly recruited using the Doctor Locator by Align Technology (California). For each clinician, four consecutive patients treated with CAT and manual stripping were selected for a total of 40 subjects and 80 dental arches. For each patient, the amount of planned IPR and the amount of actual IPR performed were recorded. Each arch was considered individually. For each arch, the mesio-distal tooth measurements were obtained from second to second premolars. Results: No systematic measurement errors were identified. In 25 cases, stripping was planned and performed in both arches; in 4 cases only in the upper arch and in the remaining 7 cases only in the lower arch. The difference between planned IPR and performed IPR was on average 0.55 mm (SD, 0.67; P = 0.022) in the upper arch and 0.82 mm (SD, 0.84; P = 0.026) in the lower arch. The accuracy of IPR in the upper arch was estimated to be 44.95% for the upper arch and 37.02% for the lower arch. Conclusion: Overall, this study showed that the amount of enamel removed in vivo did not correspond with the amount of IPR planned. In most cases, the performed IPR amount was lower than planned. When considering the actual amount in millimeter, these differences may not be considered clinically relevant.

A systematic review assessing autologous versus alloplastic bone for secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with cleft lip and palate was published in 2011 and included only one randomized controlled trial comparing traditional iliac bone graft to recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rh-BMP2). To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis on the use of secondary alveolar bone grafting (autologous bone and rh-BMP2 graft) in order to improve bone volume and height in patients with cleft lip and palate. An electronic search was conducted via PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CONTROL) via Cochrane Library, EMBASE via Ovid, and LILAC for studies published between January 2008 and September 2018. The systematic review registration number at PROSPERO was 42018085858. Only RCTs were included. Inclusion criteria were patients with the diagnosis of unilateral cleft lip and palate older than 5 years of age, radiographic evaluation (CT and/or CBCT) of the cleft area, and at least a 6-month follow-up. Bone formation and bone height by radiographic CT evaluation (preoperatively, after 6 months and after 1 year of follow-up) and length of hospital stay were assessed. Four studies met strict inclusion criteria. Autologous bone graft showed statistically significant higher bone formation after 6-month follow-up (MD − 14.410; 95% CI − 22.392 to − 6.428; p = 0.000). No statistically significant difference was noted after a 1-year follow-up (MD 6.227; 95% CI − 15.967 to 28.422; p = 0.582). No statistically significant difference in bone height was noted after 6-month (MD − 18.737; 95% CI − 43.560 to 6.087; p = 0.139) and 1-year follow-up (MD − 4.401; 95% CI − 30.636 to 21.834; p = 0.742). Patients who underwent rh-BMP2 graft had a statistically significant reduced hospital stay (MD − 1.146; 95% CI − 2.147 to − 0.145; p = 0.025). The main limitation is the high risk of bias among included studies. Autologous bone and rh-BMP2 graft showed a similar effectiveness in maxillary alveolar reconstruction in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate assessing bone graft volume and height although rh-BMP2 graft showed a relative shorter length of hospital stay (high uncertainty level).

The present study evaluated the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) by means of a diode laser in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). After extraction of the first upper premolars for orthodontic purpose, 82 maxillary canines which needed distalization were analyzed in 41 enrolled patients (21 males, 20 females, mean age 13.4 ± 2.1 years). On all experimental sites, an orthodontic force of 50/N was applied by a nickel-titanium (NiTi) closed coil spring (G&H, Franklin, IN, USA) in order to obtain the space closure. Using a split mouth randomized design, the test side was treated using a diode laser (Wiser Laser Doctor Smile, Brendola, Italy) operating at 810 nm wavelength in continuous wave mode at both the buccal and palatal side on three points/side (distal, medial and mesial) (1 W output power, continuous wave of 66.7 J/cm², energy density of 8 J) at baseline and at 3, 7, and 14 days and every 15 days until the space closed. On the control side, the opposite selected canine was treated only using orthodontic traction. The primary outcome chosen was the overall time needed to complete the levelling and closing space, measured on a study cast. The secondary outcome chosen was the evaluation of pain levels related to tooth traction, using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), recorded at 3, 7, and 14 days after treatments. The mean space closures of the maxillary canines were comparable between groups [Test, 4.56 mm (95% CI 3.9–4.8); Control, 4.49 mm (95% CI 3.8–4.7), p = 0.456]. The laser group yielded less mean time [84.35 ± 12.34 days (95% CI 79.3–86)] to accomplish space closure compared to the control group [97.49 ± 11.44 days (91.7–102.3)] (p < 0.001). The test side showed a significant reduction in the average range of dental pain at 3 [Test, 5.41 (95% CI 5.1–5.6); Control, 7.23 (95% CI 6.9–7.6), p < 0.001], 7 [Test, 4.12 (95% CI 3.8–4.7); Control, 5.79 (95% CI 5.4–5.8), p < 0.001], and at 14 days [Test, 2.31 (95% CI 1.8–2.3); Control, 3.84 (95% CI 3.3–4.2), p < 0.001] after treatment (p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the use of LLLT therapy was effective in accelerating tooth movement and reducing pain levels related to OTM.