Leniana Santos Neves

A utilização do laser em Ortodontia

Laser has been widely employed in health specialties, and its application in Dentistry is currently being evolved to benefit the patient with atraumatic and painless treatments, with better post-operative recovery, besides other advantages. Orthodontics may also be benefited from the utilization of laser, even though its application and effects are not well known by professionals. The aim of the present work is to present a literature review to provide orthodontists with information on how they may apply this energy to improve the quality of their work and the conditions for treatment, both for the professional and the patient.

Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and the activator-headgear combination appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to compare the dentoskeletal changes of patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with either the Jasper jumper appliance or the activator-headgear combination, both associated with fixed appliances. METHODS The sample comprised 72 subjects with Class II Division 1 malocclusion divided into 3 groups: group 1 included 25 subjects treated with fixed appliances and the force modules of the Jasper jumper at an initial mean age of 12.72 years, group 2 included 25 subjects treated with the activator-headgear combination followed by fixed appliances at an initial mean age of 11.07 years, and group 3 included 22 untreated subjects at an initial mean age of 12.67 years. Initial cephalometric characteristics and dentoskeletal changes were compared with analysis of variance. RESULTS Both experimental groups had similar dentoskeletal changes: restrictive effect on the maxilla, clockwise mandibular rotation and a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion of the maxillary incisors, distalization of the maxillary molars, protrusion of the mandibular incisors, extrusion of the mandibular molars, and significant improvements of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite, and the molar relationship. CONCLUSIONS The effects of the Jasper jumper and the activator-headgear combination followed by fixed orthodontic appliances were similar in Class II malocclusion treatment.

Occlusal outcomes and efficiency of 1- and 2-phase protocols in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to compare the occlusal outcomes and the efficiency of 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols in Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Treatment efficiency was defined as a change in the occlusal characteristics in a shorter treatment time. METHODS Class II Division 1 subjects (n = 139) were divided into 2 groups according to the treatment protocol for Class II correction. Group 1 comprised 78 patients treated with a 1-phase treatment protocol at initial and final mean ages of 12.51 and 14.68 years. Group 2 comprised 61 patients treated with a 2-phase treatment protocol at initial and final mean ages of 11.21 and 14.70 years. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at the pretreatment stage to evaluate morphological differences in the groups. The initial and final study models of the patients were evaluated by using the peer assessment rating index. Chi-square tests were used to test for differences between the 2 groups for categorical variables. Variables regarding occlusal results were compared by using independent t tests. A linear regression analysis was completed, with total treatment time as the dependent variable, to identify clinical factors that predict treatment length for patients with Class II malocclusions. RESULTS Similar occlusal outcomes were obtained between the 1-phase and the 2-phase treatment protocols, but the duration of treatment was significantly shorter in the 1-phase treatment protocol group. CONCLUSIONS Treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions is more efficient with the 1-phase than the 2-phase treatment protocol.

Class II malocclusion treatment using Jasper Jumper appliance associated to intermaxillary elastics: a case report

INTRODUCTION Skeletal, dental and profile discrepancies can be amended by using functional orthodontic appliances. OBJECTIVE This study is a report of the treatment of a patient, 11 years and 4 months old, with Class II, division 1, malocclusion, convex profile, protrusion of upper incisors, pronounced overjet and overbite, and mild crowding. METHODS The patient was treated with a Jasper Jumper associated to fixed appliances for 6 months and Class II intermaxillary elastics (3/16-in) during the last 4 months. After debonding, a Hawley retainer was used during daytime and a modified Bionator for night use during one year. In the lower dental arch a bonded lingual retainer was used. This treatment combination improved the profile, as well as the overjet, overbite and molar relation. RESULTS There was clockwise mandibular rotation and increase of lower anterior facial height. The lower incisors were protruded and extruded and the lower molars were extruded. The centric occlusal relation was checked and it was coincident to the maximum usual intercuspation. CONCLUSIONS It was demonstrated that the Jasper Jumper is an efficient alternative to Class II malocclusion treatment, providing improvement in the facial profile, although the changes are more dentoalveolar than skeletal.

Eficiência dos protocolos de tratamento em uma e duas fases da má oclusão de Classe II, divisão 1

AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the occlusal outcomes and the efficiency of 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols in Class II, division 1 malocclusions. Treatment efficiency was defined as a better dentoalveolar result in a shorter treatment time. METHODS: Class II, division 1 subjects (n = 139) were divided into two groups in agreement with the treatment protocol adopted for Class II correction. Group 1 comprised 78 patients treated with 1-phase treatment protocol (single-stage group) at initial and final mean ages of 12.51 (± 1.28) and 14.68 (± 1.49) years. Group 2 comprised 61 patients treated with 2-phase treatment protocol (two-stage group) at initial and final mean ages of 11.21 (± 1.21) and 14.70 (± 1.55) years. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at the pretreatment stage to evaluate morphological differences among treatment groups. Evaluations were performed on the initial and final study models of the patients using treatment priority index (TPI). Chi-square tests were used to compare the two groups regarding initial molar Class and gender distribution. Variables regarding occlusal results were compared using independent t-tests. Finally, a multiple linear regression analysis was completed, with total treatment time as the dependent variable to identify clinical factors that predict treatment length for patients with Class II malocclusions. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that similar occlusal outcomes are obtained between 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols, but the duration of treatment was significantly smaller in the 1-phase treatment protocol group. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this investigation, it can be concluded that treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusions is more efficient with the 1-phase treatment protocol.