Zobrazení zdroje stránky Mcbridebisgaard7336

To evaluate the reasons influencing the preferences for a certain type of orthodontic appliance over another among prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists.<br /><br /> A total of 49 PP and 51 orthodontists were asked about their preferences for the following appliances clear aligners (CA), lingual metallic brackets (LMB), polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, and buccal metallic brackets (BMB). The participants rated the importance of 17 potential reasons that would explain their choices. The reasons that contributed most to these preferences were identified. Non-parametric tests (Fisher's exact, χ<br /><br /> and Mann-Whitney tests) and multivariate analyses (regression and discriminant analysis) were used to assess the data (α = 0.05).<br /><br /> CA and BMB were the most chosen appliances by PP and orthodontists, respectively. LMB was the most rejected option among both groups of participants (<br /><br /> &lt; 0.001). Rates of the importance of pain/discomfort, smile esthetics, finishing details, and feeding/speech impairment showed the highest differences between PP and orthodontists (<br /><br /> &lt; 0.0005). Discriminant analyses showed that individuals who considered treatment time and smile esthetics as more important were more likely to prefer CA, while those who prioritized finishing details and cost were more likely to choose BMB (<br /><br /> &lt; 0.05).<br /><br /> Reasons related to comfort and quality of life during use were considered as more important by PP, while those related to the results and clinical performance of the appliances were considered as more relevant by orthodontists.<br /><br />Reasons related to comfort and quality of life during use were considered as more important by PP, while those related to the results and clinical performance of the appliances were considered as more relevant by orthodontists.<br /><br /> The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between rotational disk displacement (DD) of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and the dentoskeletal morphology.<br /><br /> Women aged &gt; 17 years were included in this study. Each subject had a primary complaint of malocclusion and underwent routine cephalometric examinations. They were divided into five groups according to the findings on sagittal and coronal magnetic resonance images of their TMJs bilateral normal disk position, bilateral anterior DD with reduction (ADDR), bilateral rotational DD with reduction (RDDR), bilateral anterior DD without reduction (ADDNR), and bilateral rotational DD without reduction (RDDNR). Twenty-three cephalometric variables were analyzed, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate differences in the dentoskeletal morphology among the five groups.<br /><br /> Patients with TMJ DD exhibited a hyperdivergent pattern with a retrognathic mandible, unlike those with a normal disk position. [https://www.selleckchem.com/products/ly3295668.html LY3295668 cost] These specific skeletal characteristics were more severe in patients exhibiting DD without reduction than in those with reduction, regardless of the presence of rotational DD. Rotational DD significantly influenced horizontal and vertical skeletal patterns only in the stage of DD with reduction, and the mandible exhibited a more backward position and rotation in patients with RDDR than in those with ADDR. However, there were no significant dentoskeletal differences between ADDNR and RDDNR.<br /><br /> The results of this study suggest that rotational DD of TMJ plays an important role in the dentoskeletal morphology, particularly in patients showing DD with reduction.<br /><br />The results of this study suggest that rotational DD of TMJ plays an important role in the dentoskeletal morphology, particularly in patients showing DD with reduction.<br /><br /> To evaluate the trueness and precision of full-arch scans acquired using five intraoral scanners and investigate the factors associated with the dimensional accuracy of the intraoral scan data.<br /><br /> Nine adult participants (mean age, 34.3 ± 8.3 years) were recruited. Four zirconium spheres (Ø 6 mm) were bonded to the canines and the molars. Following acquisition of reference scans using an industrial-grade scanner, five intraoral scanners, namely i500, CS3600, Trios 3, iTero, and CEREC Omnicam, were used to scan the arches. Linear distances between the four reference spheres were automatically calculated, and linear mixed model analysis was performed to compare the trueness and precision of the intraoral scan data among the different scanners.<br /><br /> The absolute mean trueness and precision values for all intraoral scanners were 76.6 ± 79.3 and 56.6 ± 52.4 μm, respectively. The type of scanner and the measured linear distances had significant effects on the accuracy of the intraoral scan data. With regard to trueness, errors in the intermolar dimension and the distance from the canine to the contralateral molar were greater with Omnicam than with the other scanners. With regard to precision, the error in the linear distance from the canine to the molar in the same quadrant was greater with Omnicam and CS3600 than with the other scanners.<br /><br /> The dimensional accuracy of intraoral scan data may differ significantly according to the type of scanner, with the amount of error in terms of trueness being clinically significant.<br /><br />The dimensional accuracy of intraoral scan data may differ significantly according to the type of scanner, with the amount of error in terms of trueness being clinically significant.<br /><br /> This study aimed to investigate the effect of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) on external apical root resorption (EARR) during the initial orthodontic alignment phase of maxillary anterior crowding.<br /><br /> Thirty patients (25 females, 5 males; mean age, 22.66 ± 3.27 years) who presented with moderate crowding of the upper labial segment and underwent extraction-based fixed appliance treatment were recruited. They were randomly allocated to receive adjunctive therapy with MOPs (n = 15) or treatment with fixed appliances only (control group; n = 15). EARR was measured from long-cone periapical radiographs taken at the start and the sixth month of treatment. A correction factor for the enlargement difference was used to calculate EARR. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and repeated-measures analysis of variance.<br /><br /> The mean root lengths of 168 teeth were measured and showed no statistically significant difference (<br /><br /> &gt; 0.05) after six months of fixed appliance treatment in the MOP (mean difference [MD] = 0.