CONTENTS

Editor’s ChoiceDavid L. Turpin, DDS, MSD, Editor-in-Chief

he

nt,dyed 3ngu-an-suc-

rt oford-mentldestte tothat

cclu-Itthis

s

-oldt anwillayed

alveojects.ore

nt in

atesdos-allerace-lab

t areund,so-

atedrewmi-

Butrageau-ants.”

itdered? I

cleesec-ew.

entowild toyou

alu-38

eforenticnd,the

Cephalometric variables predicting tlong-term success or failure ofcombined rapid maxillary expansionand facial mask therapyTiziano Baccetti, Lorenzo Franchi, and James A.McNamara, Jr

If you enjoy the challenge of Class III treatmeyou will want to read this article. In a long-term stuof 2-phase treatment outcomes, the authors identifimeasurements—length of the mandibular ramus, alation of the cranial base, and inclination of the mdibular plane to the cranial base—that predictedcess 83% of the time in a sample of 42 patients.

Final records were taken 6.5 years after the statreatment—“well after the pubertal growth peak,” accing to the authors. The mean age for the posttreatgroup was approximately 16 years, the age of my oson when he completed orthodontic treatment. I hesitaadd that my son continued to grow until age 21, andduring those 5 years, his perfectly treated Class I osion developed into a full Class III malocclusion.appears that he was in good company with the 28% instudy who had unsuccessful treatment results.

Comparison of orthodontic andorthopedic effects of a modifiedmaxillary protractor between deciduouand early mixed dentitionsKeijirou Kajiyama, Teruo Murakami, and Akira Suzuki

At times, it seems that every other new 5-yearpatient has an anterior crossbite. Is it critical to starearly phase of treatment to protract the maxilla, orthese patients respond equally well if treatment is deluntil the mixed dentition?

These researchers compared skeletal and dentolar changes in treated and untreated Class III subTheir findings indicate that early treatment induces mfavorable overall craniofacial changes than treatmethe mixed dentition stage.

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:10A0889-5406/$30.00Copyright © 2004 by the American Association of Orthodontists.doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.05.010

10A

-

Do miniscrews remain stationaryunder orthodontic forces?Eric J. W. Liou, Betty C. J. Pai, and James C. Y. Lin

The advantages of using miniscrews and miniplfor anchorage instead of the more conventional enseous implants are almost too numerous to list; smsize, more sites and indications, simpler surgical plment, shorter waiting periods, reduced need forwork, easier removal after treatment, and lower cosbut a few of the benefits. But, as good as they soyou might wonder whether miniscrews remain ablutely stationary under orthodontic loading.

In this well-designed study, 16 women were trewith en masse retraction of anterior teeth with miniscanchorage methodologies. All patients tolerated theniscrews well throughout the 9 months of treatment.did this technique provide absolutely stationary anchounder orthodontic loading? “Not exactly,” noted thethors. “They were not as stable as endosseous implSo what if they move a little, you might well ask; iscritical for them to remain absolutely stationary unloading, as long as the treatment effects are achievsuggest that you read this article for the answer.

You might also look at the Clinicians’ Corner artiin this issue of theJournal. Aldo Giancotti describes thperfect solution for a severely impacted mandibularond molar; it involves a single well-positioned miniscrSurely, it can’t be as easy as he makes it look.

Hypersensitivity to metals inorthodonticsLuciane M. Menezes, Luis C. Campos, Catia C. Quintao,and Ana M. Bolognese

On the day your patient is scheduled for the placemof fixed appliances, the child’s mother wants to knwhether the metal in the braces might sensitize her chcertain metals and cause an allergic reaction. Doknow how to answer this question?

These researchers in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, evated hypersensitivity to 8 different antigens inorthodontic patients. Patch tests were performed band 2 months after the placement of fixed orthodoappliances. The bottom line: no difference was fouindicating that the appliances did not sensitizepatients to the metals during the study period.