Objective:The study investigates the incidence and risk factors of occlusal plane cant among orthodontic patients in Xi’an.Methods:Cone-beam CT scans of 200 orthodontic patients were included to measure the degrees, incidence and the distribution of occlusal plane cant. We also analyzed the risk factors of occlusal plane deviation.Results:The incidence of occlusal plane deviation of the orthodontic patients is approximately 18.5%. A one-millimeter increase in the crown vertical height difference between the maxillary bilateral canines resulted in a 2.49-fold increase in the prevalence of occlusal plane deviation( P=0.025). Conclusions:These results suggest that the incidence of occlusal plane cant is quite high in the initial orthodontic diagnosis. Therefore, The difference in vertical height between the maxillary bilateral canines is a risk factor for this malocclusion.
2023年10月26—28日，第二十二次全国口腔正畸学术会议暨2023国际正畸大会在西安成功举办。本次会议由中华口腔医学会口腔正畸专委会主办，空军军医大学口腔医学院与西安交通大学口腔医学院承办，陕西省口腔医学会口腔正畸专委会与国药励展协办。在金作林主任委员率领和积极组织下，年会参会人数再创新高，5000余人线下参加了会议。
Skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion is a commonly encountered clinical malocclusion. It can be into three types based on its pathogenesis: maxillary deficiency, mandibular overdevelopment, or a combination of both. Among these, patients with skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion due to maxillary deficiency can benefit from rapid maxillary expansion and maxillary protraction. In recent years, alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction has gained widespread acceptance in clinical practice due to its ability to yield more satisfactory correction outcomes. This paper primarily introduces the application, biological basis, and clinical relevance of alternate rapid maxillary expansion.
Objective:To compare the therapeutic outcomes and side effects of lingual and labial fixed appliances.Methods:PubMed, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang databases were used for retrieval. Meta-analysis was conducted using Stata/MP 16.Results:The systematic review included 23 studies, and the meta-analysis included 10 of these studies. There was no significant difference in the overall treatment outcomes between lingual and labial appliances (PAR: P=0.050; ABO-OGS: P=0.624). However, the lingual appliance showed more issues in terms of the gingival index at the 12th week of treatment ( P=0.042) and speech articulation. There was no significant difference in root resorption. Conclusions:There is no significant difference in treatment outcomes and root resorption between lingual and labial appliance. However, lingual appliances had a greater impact on speech and the gingival index.
