PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

This consensus was developed by the Orthodontic Society of the Chinese Stomatological Association to provide a systematic, scientific, and practical guideline for informed consent in orthodontic care. Orthodontic treatment is typically lengthy, highly individualized, and involves multiple factors such as growth and development, occlusal function, and facial esthetics. Rapid technological advances and diverse risk profiles make the traditional reliance on orthodontist experience or institutional templates insufficient to ensure patients′ full understanding and autonomous decision-making. To address this, the expert panel conducted extensive reviews of domestic and international guidelines, analyzed representative dispute cases, and performed multicenter patient-clinician surveys. Using a multi-round Delphi method, the group established a standardized informed consent framework covering the initial consultation, treatment, and retention phases. The consensus emphasizes that informed consent is not only a fundamental legal and ethical requirement but also a key step in building trust, improving patient compliance, and enhancing treatment satisfaction. Orthodontists should clearly and comprehensively explain treatment plans, potential risks, uncertainties, and associated costs, while respecting the autonomy of patients or guardians, and maintain continuous communication and dynamic evaluation throughout the treatment process. The release of this consensus provides unified and authoritative guidance for clinical orthodontics, helping to standardize informed consent, enhance its transparency, safeguard patient rights, reduce medical risks, and promote high-quality, sustainable development of orthodontic practice.

External apical root resorption(EARR)is one of the most common side effects of orthodontic treatment.Contact with sur-rounding anatomical structures during tooth movement is a significant cause for EARR.However,a comprehensive review of factors leading to EARR due to direct contact of surrounding anatomical structures with the root apex during orthodontic treatment is still lac-king.This review summarizes the anatomical structures related to EARR,including alveolar bone,incisive canal,maxillary sinus,ad-jacent teeth,and bone islands.Alveolar bone,incisive canal,and adjacent teeth can directly cause EARR during orthodontic treat-ment,while the impact of the maxillary sinus and bone islands on EARR has not been discovered so far.Analyzing the anatomical structures around the tooth roots can help develop more effective methods to prevent or reduce the occurrence of EARR during orthodon-tic treatment.

This consensus was developed by the Orthodontic Society of the Chinese Stomatological Association to provide a systematic, scientific, and practical guideline for informed consent in orthodontic care. Orthodontic treatment is typically lengthy, highly individualized, and involves multiple factors such as growth and development, occlusal function, and facial esthetics. Rapid technological advances and diverse risk profiles make the traditional reliance on orthodontist experience or institutional templates insufficient to ensure patients′ full understanding and autonomous decision-making. To address this, the expert panel conducted extensive reviews of domestic and international guidelines, analyzed representative dispute cases, and performed multicenter patient-clinician surveys. Using a multi-round Delphi method, the group established a standardized informed consent framework covering the initial consultation, treatment, and retention phases. The consensus emphasizes that informed consent is not only a fundamental legal and ethical requirement but also a key step in building trust, improving patient compliance, and enhancing treatment satisfaction. Orthodontists should clearly and comprehensively explain treatment plans, potential risks, uncertainties, and associated costs, while respecting the autonomy of patients or guardians, and maintain continuous communication and dynamic evaluation throughout the treatment process. The release of this consensus provides unified and authoritative guidance for clinical orthodontics, helping to standardize informed consent, enhance its transparency, safeguard patient rights, reduce medical risks, and promote high-quality, sustainable development of orthodontic practice.

Protrusive facial deformities, characterized by the forward displacement of the teeth and/or jaws beyond the normal range, affect a considerable portion of the population. The manifestations and morphological mechanisms of protrusive facial deformities are complex and diverse, requiring orthodontists to possess a high level of theoretical knowledge and practical experience in the relevant orthodontic field. To further optimize the correction of protrusive facial deformities, this consensus proposes that the morphological mechanisms and diagnosis of protrusive facial deformities should be analyzed and judged from multiple dimensions and factors to accurately formulate treatment plans. It emphasizes the use of orthodontic strategies, including jaw growth modification, tooth extraction or non-extraction for anterior teeth retraction, and maxillofacial vertical control. These strategies aim to reduce anterior teeth and lip protrusion, increase chin prominence, harmonize nasolabial and chin-lip relationships, and improve the facial profile of patients with protrusive facial deformities. For severe skeletal protrusive facial deformities, orthodontic-orthognathic combined treatment may be suggested. This consensus summarizes the theoretical knowledge and clinical experience of numerous renowned oral experts nationwide, offering reference strategies for the correction of protrusive facial deformities.
Humans ; Orthodontics, Corrective/methods* ; Consensus ; Malocclusion/therapy* ; Patient Care Planning ; Cephalometry

The prevalence of Class III malocclusion varies among different countries and regions. The populations from Southeast Asian countries (Chinese and Malaysian) showed the highest prevalence rate of 15.8%, which can seriously affect oral function, facial appearance, and mental health. As anterior crossbite tends to worsen with growth, early orthodontic treatment can harness growth potential to normalize maxillofacial development or reduce skeletal malformation severity, thereby reducing the difficulty and shortening the treatment cycle of later-stage treatment. This is beneficial for the physical and mental growth of children. Therefore, early orthodontic treatment for Class III malocclusion is particularly important. Determining the optimal timing for early orthodontic treatment requires a comprehensive assessment of clinical manifestations, dental age, and skeletal age, and can lead to better results with less effort. Currently, standardized treatment guidelines for early orthodontic treatment of Class III malocclusion are lacking. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the etiology, clinical manifestations, classification, and early orthodontic techniques for Class III malocclusion, along with systematic discussions on selecting early treatment plans. The purpose of this expert consensus is to standardize clinical practices and improve the treatment outcomes of Class III malocclusion through early orthodontic treatment.
Humans ; Malocclusion, Angle Class III/classification* ; Orthodontics, Corrective/methods* ; Consensus ; Child