Introduction: A condylion–gonion–menton (Co–Go–Me) angle threshold of 125.5° has been introduced as a predictive parameter of cephalometric mandibular response in the orthopedic treatment of growing Class II patients with functional appliances, despite some contradictions in the literature. Considering the lack of studies evaluating the role of skeletal anchorage, this study aims to reassess the threshold of 125.5° in the Co–Go–Me angle as a useful predictor in growing skeletal Class II patients treated with acrylic splint Herbst appliance and two mini-screws in the lower arch (STM2).Methods: Thirty-five consecutively treated patients (20 males, 15 females; mean age, 11.37 years) with mandibular retrusion were classified into two groups according to their Co–Go–Me baseline values (Group 1, 125.5°). The STM2 protocol involved the use of the MTH Herbst appliance with an acrylic splint in the lower arch and two interradicular mini-screws as anchorage reinforcement. Cephalometric analysis was performed by the same operator for each patient at baseline (T0) and at the end of the Herbst phase (T1). The effects of time and group on the variables were assessed by a repeated-measures analysis of variance. The primary research outcome was the difference between the groups in terms of mandibular responsiveness to treatment referred to as the relative difference (T1−T0) in Co_Gn.Results: The mean duration of the treatment was 9.5 months. No statistically significant differences between groups were detected at baseline, except from the expected SN/GoMe° (p < 0.001) and Co–Go mm (p = 0.028). No statistically significant changes between groups, which were caused by the treatment, were found considering the mandibular sagittal and vertical skeletal parameters. Similarly, no statistically significant differences were found in the dental changes between the high-angle and low-angle patients, apart from the upper molar sagittal position (p = 0.013).Discussion and conclusions: The 125.5° threshold in the Co–Go–Me value was not a reliable predictive parameter for the mandibular response in growing patients treated with the MTH Herbst appliance and lower skeletal anchorage. Due to its effective control in the sagittal and vertical planes, the STM2 technique might be an appropriate protocol to use in treating skeletal Class II patients, regardless of the growth pattern.

Aim: Class II Division I malocclusion poses significant challenges in orthodontics. The combination of a Herbst appliance and miniscrew anchorage emerged as a practical solution to improve skeletal and dental outcomes. This study employed finite element analysis to evaluate the biomechanical effects of a miniscrew-supported Herbst appliance on mandibular advancement and dentition movement. Methods: High-definition CBCT scans captured the maxilla and mandible’s detailed dental anatomy. The scans were stored in DICOM format for seamless integration with Mimics software (Mimics Innovation Suite research version 21.0, Materialise NV, Leuven, Belgium) for 3D reconstruction and model refinement. The appliance, designed with a maxillary fixed palatal arch and mandibular acrylic splint connected by telescoping rods, incorporated titanium TADs and elastic chains. STL models were optimized in Geomagic x Design for finite element analysis in Abaqus, assigning validated mechanical properties for materials. Tetrahedral meshing and realistic boundary conditions simulated biomechanical interactions. Tetrahedral C3D4 elements were used for meshing, ensuring a balance between computational efficiency and detailed anatomical representation. Tetrahedral meshing and realistic boundary conditions simulated biomechanical interactions. Dynamic simulations in CATIA evaluated mandibular movement. FEA analyzed displacement across dentoalveolar structures along the X, Y, and Z axes to assess treatment efficacy and biomechanical stability. Results: The Z displacement analysis revealed that the incisal edges of the lower central, lateral, and canines shifted lingually by 0.41, 0.4, and 0.47 mm, respectively. Additionally, the apices of the lower central, lateral, and canines displaced backwards by 0.05 mm, 0.05 mm, and 0.07 mm, respectively. Conclusions: The appliance facilitated mandibular advancement, bodily retracted the lower incisors, well-controlled the upper ones, and mesial-tipped the upper posterior teeth. In contrast with traditional functional appliances, it caused the lower anterior teeth to move backwards, while skeletal anchorage overcame some shortcomings of nonsurgical treatments. This method might be a good treatment option for growing skeletal Class II patients.

Microplastics (<5 mm) and nanoplastics (<1 μm) emerged as widespread and persistent environmental pollutants, raising growing concern for human health. These particles result from the fragmentation of larger plastic items or are directly manufactured and have infiltrated ecosystems, food, water, and air. This review examines the environmental persistence, global spread, and health implications of micro- and nanoplastics, with a particular focus on their relevance to healthcare. Special attention is given to dentistry and orthodontics, where plastic use is extensive. Microplastics have been detected in virtually all environments and even in human tissues. Although the long-term health consequences remain uncertain, emerging evidence suggests potential adverse effects, including inflammation, endocrine disruption, and toxicity, particularly from nanoplastics capable of penetrating biological barriers. The healthcare sector contributes significantly to plastic pollution through the widespread use of disposable materials. Dentistry and orthodontics generate considerable plastic waste and microplastic debris, notably from single-use items and clear aligners. However, awareness among healthcare providers remains limited, though preliminary studies indicate that education can significantly increase concern and engagement. Microplastic pollution represents a pressing environmental and public health issue. The healthcare community must acknowledge its dual responsibility, as both a contributor to and a potential mitigator of plastic pollution. Targeted education, sustainable practices, and research are urgently needed.

Introduction: Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is a common sleep-related breathing disorder often linked to distinct craniofacial features and malocclusions. While orthodontic treatments, particularly maxillary expansion and mandibular advancement, have been suggested for managing this condition, the results remain controversial and are based on low-quality evidence. This paper aims to summarize the ongoing debates on this topic by reviewing relevant literature and highlighting the role of the orthodontist in diagnosing and managing OSA in daily clinical practice.Discussion and conclusions: According to the present review, there is insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny the effectiveness of oral appliances for treating pediatric OSA due to significant methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes, inadequate control groups, short study durations, and a lack of long-term follow-up. Additionally, this condition cannot be diagnosed solely based on craniofacial morphology, but an interdisciplinary evaluation is strictly required. In addition, orthopedic treatment may be considered only as an adjunct therapy for children with craniofacial anomalies increasing the risk for OSA, and the combination of multiple therapeutic approaches may be necessary to achieve effective treatment outcomes.

Skeletal Class II is a common malocclusion affecting the Caucasian population and characterized, in most cases, by a convex profile and mandibular retrusion. Therefore, the treatment plan often requires the use of functional appliances to promote mandibular advancement. In particular, the Herbst appliance is recommended because of its efficiency and minimal need for compliance. However, in addition to skeletal favorable effects, undesired dental compensations could prematurely reduce the overjet needed for a proper orthopedic outcome. The combination of this appliance with skeletal anchorage and elastic ligatures in the lower or both, in the upper and the lower arch, enables effective control of unfavorable tooth movements, improving the therapeutic potential of such a treatment. These improvements have significantly shifted the main focus on facial aesthetics rather than dental occlusion, with the creation of innovative treatment protocols and a new diagnostic approach to Class II malocclusion.