Svanewinters7388

However, statistically significant decreases in occlusal contact areas were recorded for the Essix group except for incisors. A decrease of CRE scores was seen in the Hawley group, whereas a statistically significant increase was recorded in the Essix group. CONCLUSIONS Both Hawley and bonded retainers allowed settling of the occlusion during the retention phase, whereas the Essix retainer did not allow relative vertical movement of the posterior teeth. The Hawley group showed improvement in the total CRE score, whereas the Essix group showed worsening. INTRODUCTION This study aimed to evaluate the factors that influence potential orthodontic patients choosing an orthodontist, general dentist, or direct-to-consumer (DTC) aligners for their treatment, and to determine the level of interest in each provider type. METHODS An electronic survey was administered to 249 adults among the general population in the United States to determine and evaluate the level of interest in pursuing orthodontic treatment with each provider type. RESULTS When asked their preference for provider type, 44% of respondents selected orthodontist, 34% selected DTC aligners, and 22% selected general dentist. Among respondents with the highest level of interest in pursuing orthodontic treatment, 50% selected orthodontist, and 27% selected DTC aligners (P = 0.002). For respondents with a moderate interest in pursuing treatment, only 21% selected orthodontist, and 48% selected DTC aligners (P = 0.002). The biggest perceived advantage of treatment with orthodontists was the quality of treatment, and for DTC aligners, it was convenience, followed by cost. Among adults with children, 34% selected DTC aligners for themselves, and only 16% selected DTC aligners when selecting for their children (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS There is a high level of interest among adults in pursuing treatment with both orthodontists and DTC aligners. Patients with the highest level of interest in pursuing orthodontic care tend to prefer orthodontists, whereas those with a moderate interest in pursuing treatment prefer DTC aligners. Patients tend to select orthodontists primarily because of treatment quality, whereas they select DTC aligners for convenience and then cost. Parents tend to select an orthodontist for their child's treatment, even when selecting DTC aligners for themselves. INTRODUCTION The objectives of this research were to identify the beliefs and practices of orthodontists about mouthguard use in orthodontic patients and to survey orthodontic patients currently playing school-sponsored basketball and/or football about mouthguards. METHODS Fifteen orthodontists were interviewed about mouthguard use in their patients. Patients (aged 11-18 years) playing organized school basketball (n = 53) or football (n = 22) from 13 of those 15 orthodontic practices participated in an online survey about mouthguards. RESULTS Approximately half of the orthodontists interviewed had initiated discussions about mouthguards with their patients. Although boil-and-bite mouthguards were recommended most often by orthodontists with only a single orthodontist recommending a stock type, stock was the most commonly used type (football [59%], basketball [50%]) followed by boil-and-bite (football [27%], basketball [35%]). Only 2 of the 75 patients surveyed ( less then 3%) reported using a custom mouthguard. All football players reported using a mouthguard, as mandated by this sport. Basketball does not mandate mouthguard use, and only 38% of basketball players reported wearing one. Players who used mouthguards cited forgetting as the most frequent reason for not always using one. A greater percentage of football (91%) than basketball (32%) players reported that their coach recommended a mouthguard (P  less then 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Orthodontists differ in how they approach mouthguard use by their patients, which likely reflects a lack of evidence-based guidelines. The beliefs, recommendations, and practices of orthodontists concerning mouthguard use and the use of mouthguards by orthodontic patients are discussed. Research directions to improve mouthguard use are suggested. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to evaluate the buccal and lingual alveolar bone thickness and buccolingual inclination of maxillary posterior teeth in patients with severe skeletal Class III malocclusion with and without mandibular asymmetry and compare with those in patients with skeletal Class I malocclusion. METHODS Cone-beam computed tomography images of 69 patients with severe skeletal Class III malocclusion and 30 patients with skeletal Class I malocclusion were collected and reconstructed with Dolphin 3D software. Based on the distance from menton to the sagittal plane (d), the patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion were divided into a symmetry group (d ≤ 2 mm) and an asymmetry group (d ≥ 4 mm). Buccal and lingual alveolar bone thickness and buccolingual inclination of maxillary posterior teeth were measured and compared. Correlations among dental measurements, severity of sagittal discrepancy, and mandibular deviation were analyzed. RESULTS Maxillary posterior teeth on the deviated autious owing to thinner buccal alveolar bone to avoid a high risk of fenestration and dehiscence. INTRODUCTION This experimental study was designed to (1) produce buccal translation of maxillary premolars and (2) evaluate the effects on the buccal alveolar bone. METHODS A randomized split-mouth study was designed based on 7 adult male beagle dogs. The experimental side received a custom cantilever appliance fabricated to produce a translatory force through the maxillary second premolar's center of resistance. The contralateral second premolar received no appliance and served as the control. The premolars underwent 6-7 weeks of buccal translation, followed by 3 weeks of fixed retention. Biweekly tooth movements were evaluated using intraoral and radiographic measurements. MI-773 Pretreatment and posttreatment models were measured to assess tipping. Three-dimensional microscopic tomography was used to quantify the amount and density of buccal bone. Bone formation and turnover were assessed using fluorescent labeling, hematoxylin and eosin staining, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase staining, and bone sialoprotein immunostaining.