Orthodontic closure of old, edentulous spaces in the mandibular posterior region is a major challenge. In this report, we describe a method of orthodontic closure of edentulous spaces in the mandibular posterior region accelerated by piezoelectric decortication and alveolar ridge expansion. Combined piezosurgical and orthodontic treatments were used to close 14- and 15-mm-wide spaces in the mandibular left and right posterior areas, respectively, of a female patient, aged 18 years and 9 months, diagnosed with skeletal Class III malocclusion, hypodontia, and polydiastemas. After the piezoelectric decortication, segmental and full-arch mechanics were applied in the orthodontic phase. Despite some extent of root resorption and anchorage loss, the edentulous spaces were closed, and adequate function and esthetics were regained without further restorative treatment. Alveolar ridge expansion-assisted orthodontic space closure seems to be an effective and relatively less-invasive treatment alternative for edentulous spaces in the mandibular posterior region.
Alveolar Process* ; Anodontia ; Esthetics ; Female ; Humans ; Malocclusion ; Mechanics ; Orthodontic Space Closure* ; Root Resorption ; Tooth Movement

OBJECTIVE: The coefficients of friction (COFs) of aesthetic ceramic and stainless steel brackets used in conjunction with stainless steel archwires were investigated using a modified linear tribometer and special computer software, and the effects of the bracket slot size (0.018 inches [in] or 0.022 in) and materials (ceramic or metal) on the COF were determined. METHODS: Four types of ceramic (one with a stainless steel slot) and one conventional stainless steel bracket were tested with two types of archwire sizes: a 0.017 x 0.025-in wire in the 0.018-in slots and a 0.019 x 0.025-in wire in the 0.022-in slot brackets. For pairwise comparisons between the 0.018-in and 0.022-in slot sizes in the same bracket, an independent sample t-test was used. One-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post-hoc test at the 95% confidence level (alpha = 0.05) were also used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the 0.022-in and 0.018-in slot sizes for the same brand of bracket. ANOVA also showed that both slot size and bracket slot material had significant effects on COF values (p < 0.001). The ceramic bracket with a 0.022-in stainless steel slot showed the lowest mean COF (micro = 0.18), followed by the conventional stainless steel bracket with a 0.022-in slot (micro = 0.21). The monocrystalline alumina ceramic bracket with a 0.018-in slot had the highest COF (micro = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Brackets with stainless steel slots exhibit lower COFs than ceramic slot brackets. All brackets show lower COFs as the slot size increases.
Aluminum Oxide ; Ceramics ; Friction* ; Orthodontic Brackets* ; Stainless Steel