Dimensional and positional temporomandibular joint osseous characteristics in normodivergent facial patterns with and without temporomandibular disorders

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the dimensional and positional osseous temporomandibular joint features in normodivergent facial patterns with and without temporomandibular disorders.

METHODS

A total of 165 adult patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (n = 79 patients; 158 joints): temporomandibular disorders patients and group 2 (n = 86 patients; 172 joints): non-temporomandibular disorders patients. Three-dimensional positional and dimensional temporomandibular joint characteristics, including glenoid fossa, mandibular condyles, and joint spaces, were assessed by cone beam computed tomography.

RESULTS

The glenoid fossa positions in the three orthogonal planes and height showed statistical significance between the two studied groups. The temporomandibular disorders patients showed higher horizontal and vertical condyle inclinations while anteroposterior inclination was less, and the condyle was positioned more superior, anterior, and lateral in the glenoid fossa. The condyle width and length showed no significance between the two groups, while condyle height was smaller in temporomandibular disorders patients. Anterior and medial joint spaces increased while the superior and posterior joint spaces reduced in temporomandibular disorders patients.

CONCLUSION

There were significant differences between the patients with and without temporomandibular joint disorders in terms of mandibular fossa positions and height as well as condylar positions and inclinations in horizontal and vertical planes together with reduced condylar height and reduced posterior and superior joint spaces in the temporomandibular disorders patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The temporomandibular disorder is a multifactorial disorder in which one of these factors is the dimensional and positional characteristics of the temporomandibular joints; including or excluding this factor requires a comprehensive three-dimensional investigation of patients with TMD compared to the normal group under the condition that the facial pattern is average as a confounding factor.

Evaluation of enamel roughness after orthodontic debonding and clean-up procedures using zirconia, tungsten carbide, and white stone burs: an in vitro study

BACKGROUND

The main goal of orthodontic debonding is to restore the enamel surface as closely as possible to its pretreatment condition without iatrogenic damage. This study aimed to compare the effects of different adhesive removal burs; zirconia burs, tungsten carbide burs, and white stone burs on enamel surface roughness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Total sample of 72 extracted premolars was randomly divided into three equal groups (n = 24) depending on the method of adhesive removal: zirconia burs (ZB); tungsten carbide burs (TC); and white stones (WS). The metal brackets were bonded using Transbond XT orthodontic adhesive (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) and debonded after 24 h using a debonding plier, then the ARI was assessed. The adhesive remnants were removed using the different burs and Final polishing was performed using Sof-lex discs and spirals. Thirteen samples from each group were evaluated using a Mitutoyo SJ-210 profilometer to determine average surface roughness (Ra) and three samples from each group were examined under Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to determine EDI score. The evaluations were performed at three time points; before bonding (T0), after adhesive removal (T1) and after polishing (T2) and the time consumed for adhesive removal by burs was recorded in seconds. The data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA, Tukey's test and Kruskal-Wallis H-test.

RESULTS

Kruskal-Wallis H-test showed no statistically significant difference of ARI in all studied groups (p = 0.845) and two-way mixed ANOVA revealed that all burs significantly increased surface roughness at T1 compared to T0 (p < 0.001) in all groups with the lowest Ra values were observed in the ZB group, followed by the TC group, and WS group. The fastest procedure was performed with WS, followed by ZB, then TC bur (p < 0.001). After polishing (T2), Ra values showed no significant difference in ZB group (P = 0.428) and TC group (P = 1.000) as compared to T0, while it was significant in WS group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

zirconia bur was comparable to tungsten carbide bur and can be considered as alternative to white stone which caused severe enamel damage. The polishing step created smoother surface regardless of the bur used for resin removal.

Comparison of Enamel Surface Roughness after Bracket Debonding and Adhesive Resin Removal Using Different Burs with and without the Aid of a Magnifying Loupe

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of using a magnifying dental loupe on enamel surface roughness during adhesive resin removal by different burs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-six extracted premolar teeth were randomly divided according to the bur used with or without the aid of a magnifying loupe into four equal groups (N = 24): group I: naked eye tungsten carbide burs (NTC); group II: magnifying loupe tungsten carbide burs (MTC); group III: naked eye white stones (NWS); and group IV: magnifying loupe white stones (MWS). The initial surface roughness (Ra) T0 was evaluated using a profilometer, and the scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) technique. The metal brackets were bonded and debonded after 24 hours with debonding plier. After adhesive removal, Ra was evaluated again (T1) also the time spent on adhesive removal was recorded in seconds. The samples were finally polished by Sof-Lex discs and Sof-Lex spirals, and the third Ra evaluation was performed (T2).

RESULTS

The results of two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that all burs increased surface roughness at T1 as compared to T0 (p < 0.001) with the highest Ra values shown in group III followed by group IV, group I, and group II. After polishing, no significant difference was noted in Ra values in group I and group II at T0 vs T2 (p = 1.000), while it was significant in group III and group IV (p < 0.001). Regarding the time required for adhesive removal, the shortest time was in group IV followed by groups III, II, and I, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of a magnifying loupe affects the quality of the clean-up procedure by reducing the enamel surface roughness and the time spent on adhesive removal.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Using a magnifying loupe was helpful during orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal.