Şule Gökmen

Ortodonti, günümüzde yalnızca maloklüzyonların düzeltilmesine yönelik mekanik bir tedavi yaklaşımının ötesinde; kraniyofasiyal gelişim, dentoalveoler yapı, biyomekanik, fonksiyon, hava yolu ve uzun dönem stabilitenin birlikte değerlendirildiği kapsamlı bir klinik bilim dalıdır. Bu kitap, ortodontik pratiğin farklı alanlarında güncel bilimsel kanıtlar ile klinik uygulamayı bir araya getirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Eserde; Sınıf II maloklüzyonlarda fonksiyonel ortopedik tedavi, erken dönem anterior open bite tedavisi, mandibular tek keser çekimli ortodontik yaklaşım ve minivida destekli hızlı maksiller genişletme (MARPE) gibi farklı maloklüzyon ve iskeletsel problemlere yönelik tedavi seçenekleri ele alınmaktadır. Şeffaf plak tedavisinde biyomekanik ilkeler, dijital planlama ve klinik uygulamalar ile interproksimal mine redüksiyonunun kanıta dayalı kullanımı da güncel ortodontik tedavinin önemli bileşenleri arasında değerlendirilmektedir. Kitabın kapsamı tedavi süreciyle sınırlı kalmayarak temporomandibular bozuklukların tanısındaki güncel yaklaşımları, obstrüktif uyku apnesinde ortodontinin rolünü ve tedavi sonrasında elde edilen sonuçların korunmasında retansiyonun önemini de kapsamaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra dijital ortodonti, tedavi planlamasında bireyselleştirme, ankraj yönetimi, büyüme-gelişim döneminin tedavi zamanlamasına etkisi ve periodontal biyolojik sınırların korunması gibi konular, modern ortodontik yaklaşımın tamamlayıcı unsurları olarak ele alınmaktadır. Bilimsel kanıt ile klinik deneyimin kesiştiği bu eser; ortodonti uzmanları, diş hekimleri, araştırma görevlileri ve lisansüstü öğrenciler için güncel klinik yaklaşımları değerlendirebilecekleri kapsamlı bir kaynak olarak hazırlanmıştır. Farklı tedavi seçeneklerinin endikasyon, biyomekanik temel, klinik uygulanabilirlik ve uzun dönem sonuçlar açısından değerlendirilmesi, okuyucuya yalnızca hangi tedavinin uygulanabileceğini değil, aynı zamanda hangi klinik durumda, neden ve hangi koşullarda uygulanması gerektiğini sorgulama olanağı sunmaktadır.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of automated and manual digital Bolton analyses performed using two different clear aligner therapy (CAT) planning software. Materials and Methods: Digital intraoral scans of 40 patients undergoing CAT were analyzed. Mesiodistal tooth widths and Bolton ratios were measured using: (1) a manual digital method via OrthoViewer software, (2) the ClinCheck system, and (3) DentOne software employing AI-based segmentation. The anterior and total Bolton values, as well as individual tooth width measurements, were statistically compared among the three methods. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to compare the differences. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for the post-hoc comparison between the groups. Measurement reliability was assessed using intra- and inter-observer intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results: No significant differences were observed in anterior Bolton ratios across groups (p>0.05), whereas total Bolton values showed significant differences between software and manual measurements (p<0.05). ClinCheck demonstrated smaller deviations from manual measurements compared to DentOne, particularly for maxillary molars and incisors. The largest discrepancies were observed in the posterior region. For teeth 26 and 16, the average deviations from the manual digital method were 0.56 mm and 0.47 mm for ClinCheck, and 0.84 mm and 0.87 mm for DentOne, respectively. Conclusions: While the automated Bolton analyses performed by ClinCheck and DentOne are clinically acceptable, statistically significant differences exist when compared to manual digital methods. These discrepancies are more pronounced in posterior teeth, likely due to anatomical complexity and limitations in intraoral scanning. Thus, clinicians should perform meticulous intraoral scans and consider manual verification when interpreting automated Bolton results, particularly for molars and crowded segments.

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the angle of the maxillary central incisors in Class I and Class III malocclusions, with cephalometric radiography Methods: This study analyzed 120 lateral cephalometric radiographs classified into study and control groups based on Angle’s classification, ANB angles, and Wits appraisal. The study group with skeletal Class III malocclusion, while the control group included individuals with skeletal Class I malocclusion The study group comprised 33 female and 27 male patients with a mean age of 13,59± 3,53, while the control group included 32 female and 28 male patients with a mean age of 14,26±2,60. The collum angle was defined as the angle between the long axes of the root and crown. Various cephalometric parameters were assessed, and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: The study group exhibited significantly greater proclination of the maxillary incisors than the control group, as evidenced by higher 1/NA° and 1-NA (mm) values (p < 0.001). The mean collum angle was significantly higher in Class III individuals (4.05° ± 3.98) than in Class I individuals (−0.44° ± 5.24) (p<0.001), indicating a more pronounced labial root positioning. These morphological features are consistent with true skeletal Class III malocclusion. Conclusion: The increased collum angle observed in Class III individuals results in a more labial root position, which may heighten the risk of dehiscence and fenestration during orthodontic treatment. Therefore, clinicians should consider this factor when planning treatment strategies.

Undefined - Turkish Journal of Orthodontics

Objective Palatal rugae are frequently used in the evaluation of tooth movement after treatment in orthodontics and as a stable region in superimposition. It is important to note that the impression method and material used to record the rugae region affect the accuracy of the impression. The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of palatal rugae, in three-dimensional (3D) by employing both conventional and digital impression methods. Materials and methods In this study, 22 patients (12 females, 10 males) mean age of 13.5 ± 1.7 years old were selected with complete permanent dentition. Three different impressions were taken from the maxillae of the patients: conventional impression using silicone rubber impression material, conventional impression using alginate impression material, and optical impression using an intraoral scanner. The impressions’ digital data were analyzed by the GOM Inspect (Version 2018, Braunschweig, Germany), a 3D analysis software. The Root Mean Square (RMS) values of the total ruga region were evaluated in this software. The data were statistically analyzed using the Jamovi program. The Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U test were performed due to the non-normal distribution of the data. Results There is no statistically significant difference between the comparison points of the right and left rugae’s medial and lateral points and total rugae regions’ RMS values. Although there was no statistically significant difference, the total RMS values of alginate and digital scan measurements showed closer results than the RMS values of silicone and digital scan measurements. Conclusion The study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the total RMS values of the ruga region between traditional and digital impression methods. Clinical relevance The treatment period in orthodontics is long. Different impression materials and methods can be used for diagnostic, mid-treatment, and final impressions. For superimpositions and treatment and post-treatment palatal ruga evaluations, traditional and digital impression methods are clinically acceptable and can be used as alternatives to each other.

The recent study aimed to evaluate the knowledge levels of dentists on intraoral scanners and 3D printers with their usage prevalence of them in Türkiye.A link to the survey was sent via e-mail to 1782 dentists in different branches who participated in this survey, which had 27 questions in four subgroups, including demographic information, general digital dentistry, intraoral scanners, and 3D printers. The total number of dentists who answered the questionnaire was determined as 305. Considering the distribution of the ages, %21.3 (n=65) of the participants were 23-28 years, %32.1 (n=98) were 29-35 years, and %46.6 (n=142) were 36 and over years. A statistically significant difference was found in the use of intraoral scanners and 3D printers in workplaces (p<0.001, p<0.001). A statistically significant difference was found regarding branches in intraoral scanner usage. While the rate of using intraoral scanners by 54.5% of restorative dentists is higher than other branches (p<0.001), orthodontists were found to be more active users of 3D printers (47.9%, p=0.001). According to the results of our study, it has been observed that dentists generally obtain information about intraoral scanners and 3D printers through individual efforts and only a few dentists in Türkiye can integrate these devices into their everyday practices.