Search Results (17)

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of AMCOP^® elastodontic appliances on cephalometric parameters of skeletal divergence and upper airway dimensions in growing patients, comparing treated individuals with an untreated control group. Methods: A total of 60 subjects (30 treated with AMCOP^® devices and 30 controls) were selected, with mean ages of 8.67 ± 1.3 and 9.19 ± 0.8 years, respectively. The AMCOP^® appliances, designed for mixed dentition, were worn for 1 h during the day and throughout the night for 6–8 months. Cephalometric analyses were conducted at the beginning (T0) and end (T1) of treatment. Statistical analyses were performed using multivariable linear regression models to assess changes in skeletal and airway parameters, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: Significant reductions were observed in Ans-Snp^Go-Gn (p = 0.0351), SN^Go-Gn (p = 0.0091), and FMA (p < 0.001) in the treated group compared to controls, indicating improved mandibular rotation. Upper airway spaces (SPAS, MAS, IAS) increased significantly, suggesting enhanced airway patency. Regression models confirmed the positive impact of AMCOP^® therapy on skeletal and airway outcomes, particularly in subjects with pronounced vertical discrepancies. Conclusions: AMCOP^® elastodontic devices effectively promote anterior mandibular rotation and reduce mandibular plane inclination in hyperdivergent patients, contributing to balanced craniofacial growth. The expansion of pharyngeal spaces indicates potential respiratory benefits. Future research is needed to confirm long-term stability and address variability in treatment response. Full article

Background: A transverse discrepancy refers to a dimensional difference in the transverse component of the upper and lower dental arches with functional and esthetic implications. The main purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of transverse expansion movement of dentoalveolar nature performed by two innovative orthodontic appliances: elastodontic devices and clear aligners. Specifically, it is intended to determine which of the two methods is more effective in terms of dentoalveolar expansion in a sample of children with mixed dentition. Methods: In total, 29 patients aged 6 to 13 years with mixed dentition were included in the present study and divided into two groups according to a case–control scheme. Of the subjects, 15 (8 females and 7 males) represented the test group and were treated with Eptamed elastodontic devices, while the control group, consisting of 14 patients (12 females and 2 males), received a Spark aligner. The efficacy of the devices was evaluated by comparing cross-sectional measurements of the arch scans at time T0 (before the start of treatment), T1 (6 months after the start of treatment) and T2 (one year after the start of treatment) by measurement in mm of the distance between the palatal cusps of the first upper premolar (if missing, of the corresponding deciduous molar). Statistical analysis was conducted using a nonparametric approach with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The data resulting from the measurements were expressed as the mean (standard deviation). Results: No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups at either T0 (p = 0.3), T1 (p = 0.78), or T2 (p = 0.66), thus allowing the conclusion that both treatment modalities are comparable. Conclusions: Both elastodontics and clear aligners proved to be effective devices in the treatment of transverse discrepancies of a dentoalveolar nature. Elastodontics also plays a crucial role in the rebalancing of stomatognathic and extrastomatognathic functions. Full article

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the facial profile changes of patients treated for class II skeletal malocclusions with an elastodontic appliance compared to those treated with the Herbst appliance and a control group. Methods: Forty class II patients were treated using an elastodontic appliance (Group EA) and were compared to 40 patients treated with the Herbst appliance (Group H) and to 40 untreated class II children (Group C). Aesthetic profile variables were analysed using Arnett’s analysis. Cephalograms were compared pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired-samples t-test was used for pairwise comparison of cephalometric measurements taken at T0 and T1. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test were performed to assess differences between the groups. Results: In the elastodontic group, the inclination of the upper incisors increased by 4.05°. In addition, the Pog–TVL and B–TVL distances decreased by 2.84 mm and 1.79 mm, respectively. In patients treated with an elastodontic appliance, the inclination of the upper incisors increased by 4.05°. In addition, the Pog–TVL and B–TVL distances decreased by 2.84 mm and 1.79 mm, respectively. In patients treated with the Herbst appliance, the inclination of the lower incisors increased by 6.11°. Furthermore, the treatment resulted in reductions in the Pog–TVL distance (2.58 mm), the B–TVL distance (2.26 mm), and the LL–TVL distance (2.31 mm). Conclusions: The profile changes achieved by both devices are favourable for correcting class II skeletal malocclusion. Full article

Elastodontics is an interceptive orthodontic therapy that uses light and biological elastic forces through preformed or custom-made removable orthodontic appliances. This study aims to evaluate the effects of elastodontic devices on correcting sagittal discrepancies in growing subjects with mixed dentition. Electronic research was conducted on four databases: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Data were extracted based on the first author, year of publication, setting and country, study design, sample characteristics, sample size calculation, type of malocclusion, intervention, control group type, compliance, follow-up, and cephalometric measurements. Sixteen studies were included in the final review. Most studies observed a statistically significant reduction (p < 0.05) in SNB and ANB angles. Ten studies reported a reduction in overjet, while eight studies found no change in facial divergence. Comparisons with conventional functional devices revealed no consensus on the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects. Elastodontic appliances significantly improve cephalometric and dentoalveolar parameters, potentially correcting skeletal and dental relationships. However, result variability and unclear advantages over traditional appliances highlight the need for further research. Full article

Background and Objectives: The objective of this retrospective controlled study is to compare class II growing patients who underwent treatment with two different functional appliances: the Fraenkel regulator (FR-2), utilized as the control group, and the elastodontic device “Cranium Occluded Postural Multifunctional Harmonizers” (AMCOP), utilized as the test group. Materials and Methods: The study sample consisted of 52 patients with class II division I malocclusion (30 males, 22 females, mean age 8.6 ± 1.4 years) who were treated with the two different types of appliances: Group 1 (n = 27, mean age 8 [7.00, 9.00] years, 12 females, 15 males) received treatment with AMCOP, while Group 2 (n = 25, mean age 9.2 years [8.20, 10.00], 10 females, 15 males) received treatment with FR-2. The mean treatment duration for Group 1 was 28.00 [21.50, 38.00] months, while for Group 2 it was 23.70 [17.80, 27.40] months. Cephalometric analyses were performed on lateral cephalograms taken before treatment (T1) and after treatment (T2). Results: Significant intragroup differences were observed over time in Group 1 for 1^/PP. Similarly, significant intragroup differences were observed over time in Group 2 for SNB, ANB, and IMPA. Conclusions: Both treatment modalities resulted in the correction of class II malocclusion with dentoalveolar compensation, although the treatment duration with AMCOP tended to be longer on average. Full article

Background: Preformed elastodontic appliances (EAs) have been described as safe, cost-effective, and easy-to-use devices for interceptive orthodontic treatment in growing patients. This study aimed to assess the knowledge and the attitude of dentists toward the use of EAs and to compare the behaviors of orthodontists (Os) with those of general dental practitioners (GDPs). Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed among dentists through social media. Twenty-two items were divided as follows: characteristics of respondents; general knowledge about EAs; section for EA-users; and section for EA non-users. Chi-squared tests were used to analyze differences in responses between groups. Results: Participants included 226 Os and 168 GDPs. The majority in both groups reported having adequate knowledge about EAs and utilizing them in their practice. GDPs usually use EAs to treat children during the early phase of growth, while Os also use EAs to address orthodontic problems in different stages of dentition, experiencing a chair time reduction compared with traditional appliances. Regarding EA non-users, GDPs seem not to find an application among their patients, whereas Os reported not having enough patient compliance during treatment. Conclusions: Although treatment with EAs is common among all dentists, differences exist between Os and GDPs in the awareness and application, as well as in the reasons provided for not using EAs. Full article

Background. Interceptive orthodontic treatment aims to eliminate factors that prevent the harmonious development of the maxillary and mandibular arches during childhood, and elastodontic appliances (EAs) represent a group of devices with an increasingly important role. This systematic narrative hybrid review (HR) aims to provide an overview of the clinical indications for the use of EAs according to the available evidence and to identify potential research areas for unexplored applications. Materials and methods. To assess the available literature on the subject, selective database searches were performed between July 2023 and September 2023. With the assistance of a health sciences librarian, a search strategy that utilized terms related to elastodontic therapy was developed. Embase, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science were the databases used. Results. The current literature addressing the usability of EAs is scarce and mostly limited to case reports and case series. After 2168 citations were found through the searches, 13 studies were ultimately included. In this regard, information about the clinical use and effectiveness of EAs are reported in a narrative form, defining specific domains of the application that are clinically oriented, including sagittal and transversal discrepancies, atypical swallowing, teeth malposition, two-phase orthodontics and a lack of teeth retention. Conclusions. Within the intrinsic quality limitation of the available literature, it seems that EAs may represent a promising treatment alternative for managing mild-to-moderate malocclusion in children as an adjuvant therapy to the interruption of spoiled habits. Full article

Scientific studies have shown that dysfunctional problems associated with dysmorphisms are the base of malocclusion. The position of the mouth and the head is a component of the general postural arrangement, so any head misalignment creates disharmonies and tensions among the neck muscles. Elastodontics is a treatment based on the use of removable elastomeric devices. These functional appliances are made of elastomeric material, acting tridimensionally on a neuromuscular system with orthopaedic and dental effects. Bioactivators have a vestibular and lingual flange with a free central area that permits them to position teeth without constraints. The flanges are linked by an occlusal plane that maintains the two skeletal bases and teeth in first-class normocclusion with propulsive and retropulsive effects on the maxilla and mandible. Elastomeric devices are generally well tolerated by patients requiring simple collaboration and management. This review aim is to describe the indications and limits of orthodontic therapy with elastomeric devices to provide an overview of elastodontics. Full article

Background: The aim of the present study was to compare the changes observed in children after the early treatment of mild class III malocclusion using bimaxillary removable plates supported by class III elastics and elastodontic devices. Methods: Twenty children (mean age 7.6 ± 1.1 years) with signs of class III malocclusion were treated using by-maxillary plates (PG group) with class III elastics (10 subjects = mean age 7.9 ± 1.3 years) or using class III elastodontic devices (EG group) (10 subjects = mean age 7.4 ± 0.8 years). Digital models and lateral cephalograms were obtained before treatment (T0) and at the end of treatment (T1). The digital models were analyzed to assess occlusal changes and maxillary morphology using the surface-to-surface matching technique. Changes in cephalometric parameters were also analyzed. The data outcomes were statistically analyzed using the paired Student’s t test for inter-timing assessments and the independent Student’s t test for inter-group assessments. Results: Both groups showed correction of class III malocclusions, with a significant increase in the ANB angle and the overjet (p < 0.05). Subjects in the PG group exhibited a greater reduction in the inter-incisal angle compared to the EG group (p < 0.05). The children in the EG group had a significantly lower percentage of palatal morphology matching between T0 and T1 compared to the PG group (p < 0.05), suggesting greater morphological changes in the palate. Conclusions: Elastodontic appliances (EAs) and bi-maxillary plates successfully correct class III malocclusions in children. However, elastodontic devices significantly improved the morphology of the palate, both in the transverse and anteroposterior directions. Full article

Background: The present study analyzed the changes obtained on the upper airway and hyoid bone dimensions in a group of patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion treated with functional elastodontic devices compared to an untreated control group. Methods: A group of 33 patients (19 females and 14 males) with Class II malocclusion treated with AMCOP^® SC elastodontic device was compared with a control group of 35 subjects (17 females and 18 males) with untreated Class II malocclusion. Lateral cephalograms were available at the start (T0) and end of treatment/period of observation (T1). Cephalometric analysis was performed and linear measurements to evaluate airway space and hyoid bone position were also obtained. A multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures (MANOVA) was performed to determine the effects of interactions for the groups for time. Results: Statistically significant differences were found in the study group from T0 and T1 with an improvement of superior upper airway (SPAS p < 0.0001), while in the control group it did not change in a statistically significant way from T0 to T1. The MANOVA test showed statistically significant differences between the two groups for the changes of SPAS (p = 0.003), IAS (p = 0.049), and H-C3 vertical (p = 0.038) values. Conclusions: Functional elastodontic therapy produced significant favorable airway changes in skeletal class II subjects. Full article

The aim of the current study was to assess patient and parental satisfaction following treatment during mixed dentition with two removable orthodontic devices: elastodontic appliances (EAs) and clear aligners (CAs). Consecutive patients below the age of 12 years who had completed the active phase of EA or CA therapy were recruited. A dedicated written questionnaire divided into four sections was used to measure parental and patient satisfaction regarding treatment experiences and treatment outcomes. The total sample included 56 subjects: 28 belonged to the EA group (7 girls and 21 boys; mean age 11 years); 28 belonged to the CA group (12 girls and 16 boys; mean age 9 years). Patients and parents of both the EA and CA groups were satisfied with the treatment experiences and outcomes. According to parental reporting, EA treatment was significantly more painful than CA therapy (p = 0.003), but this was not confirmed by the patients (p = 0.100). Both parents and patients reported EAs being significantly more difficult to wear than CAs (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). Functional improvements were reported, including a reduction in grinding sounds in the CA group (p = 0.020) and breathing improvements in the EA group (p = 0.023). According to the parents, school life and social life were significantly improved in the CA group, as compared to the EA group (school life p < 0.001, social life p = 0.001). Finally, parents belonging to the CA group found that their child’s treatment was much shorter than expected (p = 0.003). Full article

Background: This pilot study aimed to verify the efficacy of two orthodontic appliances in relation to changes in the lower intercanine distance in growing patients. Methods: Twenty patients aged 10–16 years were enrolled in the study and separated into test and control groups. The test group included 10 patients (5 males, 5 females; mean age, 10.4 ± 1.57 years) who were treated with an elastodontic device. The control group included 10 patients (5 males, 5 females; mean age 10.8 ± 1.53 years) who were treated with clear aligners. The two groups exhibited the same orthodontic features. The orthodontic criteria were: skeletal class I relationship, molar class I relationship, and presence of lower crowding. Patients were evaluated as having mild or moderate crowding according to the Daniels and Richmond index. The lower intercanine distance was evaluated at three timepoints via intraoral scans: T0 (before starting therapy), T1 (after six months), and T2 (after 1 year). Data were analyzed using a nonparametric approach via the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at T0, T1, or T2 (p < 0.05). Conclusions: elastodontic devices and clear aligners can successfully help the orthodontist conduct lower arch expansion treatment. These appliances are comfortable to wear, simple to clean every day, and reduce the number of dentist appointments. Finally, but not of least importance, these devices have allowed dentists to continue orthodontic treatments during the lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic. Full article

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the mechanical resistance of elastodontic devices (ED): their maximum compression loads and plastic deformation under loading (percentage). An Instron universal machine (Model 3365, Instron, Industrial Product Group, Grove City, PA, USA) was employed with a 100 N load cell and with Bluehill software for loading analyses. Each device was submitted to a five-cycles test. The following ED were evaluated: A.M.C.O.P. (Micerium, Genova, Italy) in red color, in orange color, and in blue color; HealthyStart (Ortho-Tain, Winnetka, IL, USA), and T4K™ phase 1 (Myofunctional Research Co., Helensvale, Australia). During the five-cycles test, the Ortho-Tain device delivered the greatest compression load (7.56 N), with the lowest percentage of deformation (0.95%). For all devices, a slight plastic deformation of the material was registered, ranging from 0.95% to 1.75%. For the T4K device it was not possible to complete the five-cycles test. For all the analyzed ED, a slight plastic deformation under loading was registered, that in all cases can be considered clinically acceptable. Further studies are needed to test the appliances after clinical usage. Full article

Background: The management of a hyperdivergent growth pattern is one of the most challenging in orthodontics and different treatments are advocated. The present study analyses the effectiveness of elastodontic therapy with AMCOP^® devices in treating children with hyperdivergent class II malocclusion and the effect on the upper airway patency. Methods: The study group included 21 patients (10 males and 11 females, mean age 8.22 ± 1.17 years) with a hyperdivergent growth and a class II malocclusion treated with AMCOP^® devices. Cephalometric analysis was performed before treatment (T0) and after treatment (T1). Results: After treatment, the cephalometric analysis revealed a correction of the class II malocclusion and a modification of the growth pattern with a divergence reduction. The improvement of the upper airway space was also observed. Conclusion: The elastodontic therapy effectively corrected hyperdivergent class II malocclusion in growing patients over a short period. Full article

Background: Elastodontics is a specific interceptive orthodontic treatment that uses removable elastomeric appliances. They are functional appliances that produce neuromuscular, orthopedic and dental effects. Thus, these devices are useful in the developmental age, when skeletal structures are characterized by important plasticity and adaptation capacity, allowing to remove factors responsible for malocclusions. Elastomeric devices are generally well tolerated by patients requiring simple collaboration and management. This work can be useful to update all orthodontists already adopting these appliances or for those who want to approach them for the first time. This study aimed to describe four cases treated with new elastomeric devices called AMCOP Bio-Activators and to provide an overview of elastodontics, its evolution, indications and limits. Methods: A total of four clinical cases were presented after a treatment period of 16–20 months to evaluate the clinical and radiological effects of the elastodontic therapy. Results: The effectiveness of Bio-Activators on clinical cases was evidenced with a significant improvement in skeletal and dentoalveolar relationship, and malocclusion correction in a limited treatment period (16–20 months). Conclusions: The Bio-Activators showed clinical effectiveness to achieve therapeutic targets according to a low impact on the patient’s compliance. Full article