Fall IJO Abstract (Click the title to read full article)
Introduction: Biocompatibility is crucial in orthodontics to ensure biomaterials interact favourably with the oral mucosa. Stainless steel commonly used for orthodontic bands, is considered biocompatible, but concerns arise with silver solder, which may release cytotoxic ions. Corrosion is a primary worry in assessing metallic materials, influencing host responses and potentially causing hypersensitivity. This review seeks to investigate the possible cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of silver soldered bands in orthodontics.
Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using electronic databases including PubMed, Central of the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases. In vitro studies, in vivo studies, Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of silver soldered bands with non-soldered bands were included in the study. The quality of the in vitro studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool For In Vitro Studies (QUIN Tool).
Results: Four in vitro studies were included in this systematic review. One in vitro study had a low risk of bias and 3 in vitro studies had a medium risk of bias.
Conclusion: Studies indicate higher cytotoxicity and genotoxicity with silver-soldered bands (SSB) compared to non-soldered bands (NSB) and controls. Laser soldering presents an intriguing alternative, despite its cost and limited research in orthodontics. Given the prevalent use of SSB in orthodontic appliances, the scarcity of studies on bands cytotoxicity and the newness of laser soldering, further research on various silver solder brands and alternative metal joining methods is crucial for a comprehensive understanding.
Keywords: Cytotoxicity, Silver soldered bands, cell lineages
Conflict of Interest: None
The required bends in Mulligan Mechanics may be executed extra-orally or intra-orally. Dr. Mulligan prefers the execution intra-orally, however, the author favors placement extra-orally.
Impacted maxillary canines are a relatively frequent clinical issue encountered in orthodontic practice. When these teeth fail to erupt, they can contribute to malocclusion and negatively impact a patient’s psychological and social well-being. Although multiple treatment options exist, there is no universally established protocol for managing such cases. This case report presents a non-surgical approach for treating a patient with dental crowding and an impacted maxillary left canine (tooth 23). The treatment involved the extraction of all four first premolars to create adequate space, allowing the canine to erupt naturally and resolving the crowding. This case emphasizes the significance of thorough diagnosis and integrated treatment planning in addressing not only impacted canine and crowding but also associated soft tissue concerns. It also illustrates that, in certain cases where the impacted canine has favorable position and orientation, surgical intervention may not be necessary if sufficient space is provided within the arch.
Keywords: impacted canine, bioinduction, facilitated eruption, maxillary canine, mushroom loop.
Conflict of Interest: None
In private practice dentistry, there’s one resource that governs nearly every decision you make: time. It shows up most clearly in your schedule, and I’ve long said it – either you own your schedule, or your schedule owns you.
What most doctors don’t realize is that the schedule is not just a calendar of appointments – it’s a formula for leverage. The way your clinical day is structured determines how much you can earn, how much stress you carry, and how much of your life you have left outside the practice.
It’s no surprise, then, that the number one reason doctors like you seek out my counsel is this: they want to make more money in less time.
That is the ultimate equation every ambitious professional is trying to solve. And yet, so many get it wrong because they start with the wrong assumptions about what “growth” actually means.
Objective: This systematic review comprehensively evaluates advancements in orthodontic anchorage systems from 2000 to 2024, focusing on temporary anchorage devices (TADs), miniplates, palatal anchorage systems, and emerging technologies such as 3D- rinted, bioresorbable, and AI- integrated devices.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for peer- eviewed studies published between January 2000 and December 2024. Inclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials, cohort studies, systematic reviews, biomechanical analyses, and technological studies on orthodontic anchorage. Data were synthesized thematically, focusing on efficacy, clinical applications, complications, biomechanical principles, global adoption, and future directions. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and GRADE tools.
Results: From 682 screened studies, 280 were included. TADs reduced treatment times by 20–50% in complex cases, with success rates of 85–95%. Miniplates enabled skeletal corrections, while digital tools (CBCT, CAD/CAM) improved placement accuracy by 90%. Complications, such as screw loosening (5–12%) and soft tissue irritation (10–15%), decreased with design and protocol advancements. Emerging technologies, including bioresorbable screws and AI-guided placement, show 90% efficacy but require long-term validation. Global disparities in adoption persist due to cost and training barriers.
Conclusion: Orthodontic anchorage systems have revolutionized treatment efficiency, precision, and patient outcomes. Challenges, including complications, costs, and equitable access, demand collaborative research. Future innovations in bioresorbable materials, AI, and affordable technologies will shape the field.
Keywords: Orthodontic anchorage, temporary anchorage devices, skeletal anchorage, miniplates, 3D printing, bioresorbable implants, artificial intelligence, systematic review
Conflict of Interest: None
Background: Interceptive orthodontics refers to measures taken to prevent a potentially developing malocclusion from becoming more severe. During the mixed dentition stage, the permanent teeth have not fully erupted; therefore, estimating the size of the unerupted permanent teeth is necessary.
Methods: This comparative observational In-vitro study consisted of pre-treatment study models of 258 patients in the age group 15-25 years with Angle’s Class I malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment. A simple random sampling technique was applied. The maximum mesiodistal width of permanent mandibular anterior teeth, premolars, and first molars was recorded using an electronic digital vernier calliper on Orthocal-poured impressions with a calibrated digital micrometre having accuracy and reproducibility in the range of 0.01mm. Then the measured lower incisor and molar widths were used for calculating the predicted values using three different mixed dentition analyses- Moyer’s, Tanaka Johnston’s and Melgaco’s analyses in the mandibular arch. All patients who were indigenous to South Kerala and had all the fully erupted permanent teeth in both arches were included in the study. Patients who received orthodontic treatment in the past, children with congenital craniofacial anomalies, and patients with severe crowding and severe spacing were excluded from the study.
Result: The mean difference between actual values and predicted values for Moyer’s analysis is 0.29, Tanaka Johnston’s analysis is 0.67, and for Melgaco’s method, it is 0.76. Predicted values based on all three analyses overestimated the actual measured width, and the values were statistically significant with a p-value of 0.001.
Conclusion: All three mixed dentition analyses, Moyer’s, Tanaka Johnston’s, and Melgaco’s methods, overestimated the mean actual measured widths. The predicted differences by Moyer’s and Tanaka-Johnston’s methods were nearly identical in males and showed better accuracy compared to Melgaco’s analysis. However, in females, Melgaco’s prediction proved to be more reliable than those of Moyer’s and Tanaka-Johnston.
Keywords: Corrective Orthodontics, Interceptive Orthodontics, Mixed dentition and Preventive Orthodontics
Conflict of Interest: None
