Introduction: To establish the relationship between orthodontic treatment time with educational/administrative/clinical factors, in patients treated and finished, at the orthodontics program clinic of an University. Methods: Data were obtained from clinical records, panoramic radiographs and final dental cast from 40 treated patients (21 women and 19 men), 15.97 ± 5.79 years old. The administrative variables included:  number of accomplished appointments, number of appointments per year of treatment, total number of missed appointments, total months of treatment, number of effective months of treatment, number of residents and instructors attending the patients and percentage of treatment planning for next appointment. Clinical variables included: malocclusion complexity, quality of finalization, teeth extractions, age and number of orthodontic appliance issues/breakages. Results: The average ± SD treatment duration was 55.5 ± 22.2 months. In patients with dental extractions, treatment time was significantly higher (p=0.0231). A model of multiple linear regression explained 59% of the variability, identifying four significant variables, two related to administration (number of missed appointments and number of instructors) and two clinical variables (number of orthodontic appliance issues/breakages and quality of finalization). Conclusion: Significant clinical and administrative issues were detected and it was observed that excessive time for treatment may deteriorate the static clinical results achieved.

Antecedentes: Los caninos impactados en vestibular y moderada o gravemente desplazados anteriormente son un reto clínico. Las secuelas estéticas mucogingivales y la reabsorción de dientes cercanos requerirían manejos interdisciplinarios. Así, el abordaje terapéutico es más complejo y con alto costo biológico y económico. Objetivo: Realizar una revisión de alcance apoyada en dos casos clínicos con abordaje multidisciplinario, quirúrgico y ortodóncico para traccionar caninos retenidos en vestibular. Métodos: Se revisaron tres bases (PubMed, Scopus y Lilacs) y búsqueda en Google Scholar, usando combinaciones de términos MeSH y conectores booleanos. Se incluyeron estudios en humanos como descripciones de caso, series de casos y revisiones sobre la técnica de túnel con incisión vertical subperióstica (VISTA) y el manejo ortodóncico del canino retenido con o sin minitornillos. Los dos casos clínicos aquí presentados tuvieron abordajes quirúrgicos y ortodónticos para traccionar caninos retenidos vestibularmente mediante la técnica VISTA con dos anclajes ortodóncicos, minitornillos y adaptación de un botón palatino modificado con tubos dobles soldados a bandas de primeros molares superiores, además un brazo de acero soldado a la banda del diente 26 para remplazar el minitornillo. Resultados: De 45 títulos se seleccionaron cuatro artículos. La técnica VISTA para traccionar caninos retenidos vestibularmente muestra ventajas para el manejo de tejidos blandos y para la biomecánica. La presentación de estos casos ofrece dos alternativas que se adaptan a las condiciones socioeconómicas de los pacientes, ambas con resultados ortodónticos y de preservación de los tejidos periodontales óptimos durante la tracción de los caninos retenidos.  

Objective: This non-randomized controlled clinical trial compared a new finishing protocol UDEA2 with the UDEA1 finishing protocol, according to the Objective Grading System (ogs). Methods: Forty-one patients treated in the postgraduate orthodontics clinic were included. Twenty patients served as intervention group (ig) with whom was used the UDEA2 protocol which includes dental positioners, and were compared to twenty-one patients that served as control group (cg) with whom was used the UDEA1 finishing protocol. An orthodontist (gold standard) determined the required movements with positioners used in the UDEA2 protocol. Eight ogs variables were measured by a calibrated clinician. Results: Both groups were comparable in gender, age and severity, but not in type of treatment applied. The total ogs for gc was 28.9±10.0, for ig at T1 (before the positioner) was 20.4±6.0 and the score for ig at T2 (after the positioner) was 19.2±6.0, with statistically significant differences (P≤0.05). The ogs score was principally increased for “alignment” in gc and ig-T1 groups. This variable decreased significantly in the ig-T2 group. There were no patients with more than 30 points in the ig-T2. The regression analysis showed an association (P=0.002) between the finishing protocol applied and the final ogs score. Possibility of belonging to the ig-T2 decreases as the ogs score increases (odds ratio [or] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.738, 0.933). Conclusions: The implementation of the UDEA2 finishing protocol, which includes an orthodontics student’s constant training, a Finishing Protocol Guide application, and a dental positioner in the finishing phase, showed an improvement in quality of orthodontic treatments.

Introduction: the gummy smile (gs) is one of the most negatively valued aspects; its presence in the adult life is reason of constant consultation, but during childhood it usually is considered normal. The aim of this study was to describe and compare the perio-dontium traits in a group of children with different malocclusions with or without gum-my smile, and evaluate the influence of gingival characteristics along with gummy smile. Methods: in this analytical study of case and control, the sample size was probabilistic. 163 children with mixed silent dentition that meted the criteria of inclusion and exclusion were involved: 37 cases with gummy smile (gs) and 126 controls without gummy smile (ngs). The occlusal variables of smile and periodontal disease were assessed through a cli-nical exam and photograms. The evaluators were previously calibrated (kappa 0,87 and icc0,96). Results: the average age of patients in both groups was of 8,8 years with a standard deviation of 0,9 in cases and 0,8 in controls. The prevailing malocclusion was class I (63,8% of the samples). The periodontal characteristics were similar in both groups. The thick periodontal biotype had a tendency to behave as risk factor to gs (or 1,6) but the relation wasn’t statistically significant (ic = 95% 0,6 – 4,1). Conclusion: the periodontal factors do not have an effect on gummy smile in children, though their behavior at later stages must be closely observed