Winter IJO Abstract (Click the title to read full article)
This report details specific clinical, patient, and practice management techniques and risk management principles relating to the duties and obligations owed under the doctor-patient relationship by both the patient to the doctor, and the doctor to the patient. The reader is asked to decide which party was primarily responsible for the injury the patient sustained.
Key Words: Doctor–Patient Relationship, Standard of Care, Referral Liability, Contributory Negligence, Comparative Negligence, Dental Risk Management
Conflict of Interest: None
Hypomineralized second primary molars (HSPM) are characterized by a qualitative defect in enamel development occurring during the mineralization and maturation phases of amelogenesis. HSPM is prevalent but often underdiagnosed, particularly by orthodontists, and a multidisciplinary approach is essential to establish an appropriate treatment plan, especially when malocclusions are already present at an early age. Numerous risk factors (environmental and systemic) may be associated with hypomineralization, as well as with malocclusions (extrinsic and intrinsic factors and deleterious oral habits), in addition to genetic/hereditary influences. This case report describes an 8-year-old female patient in the mixed dentition stage presenting with severe HSPM and canines, molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH), maxillary constriction, anterior open bite, and Class II malocclusion associated with mandibular retrognathism. Clinical and radiographic examinations revealed extensive enamel deterioration of the affected primary molars and canines, occlusal disharmony, and vertical growth tendency. A family history suggestive of hereditary involvement was lso identified. After interceptive orthodontic treatment, the patient xhibited preserved clinical crown integrity of teeth affected by MIH, satisfactory occlusion, improved facial profile, and a harmonious smile. This case highlights the importance of early diagnosis of DDEs and the role of a multidisciplinary interceptive approach in preventing functional deterioration, minimizing structural damage, and improving long-term occlusal and esthetic outcomes.
Keywords: Molar Hypomineralization; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Open Bite; Palatal Expansion Technique; Orthodontics.
Conflict of Interest: None
Referrals are not a marketing gimmick. Referrals are not a punch card or a sign at the front desk. Referrals are not something you “get” by squeezing in one more awkward ask on the way out the door.
A comparative analysis of orthodontic standard of care versus orthodontic state of the art.
Orthodontically straight teeth compared to orthodontically straight teeth when considering dental function and the TMJ. As the level of orthodontic treatment progresses from standard of care to state of the art, the health of the TMJ and the dental occlusion come into closer focus. Standard of care provides the patient with orthodontically straight teeth that function and a full smile. The state of the art provides the patient with orthodontically straight teeth, a functional dentition that works in a particular way, a full smile, and particular attention to the TMJ’s condyle-disc position and its function.
Keywords: TMJ, Sagittal appliance
Conflict of Interest: None
The Mulligan Intrusion arch is a two-couple intrusion arch wire used for control of anterior deep overbite. It is commonly made with round wire (a .020 or a .018 SS), attached to the teeth only at the molars and the incisors and is activated for incisor intrusion by a molar tip-back (off-center, gable) bend. Dr. Mulligan used a .020 ss arch wire; however, the author prefers a .018 SS arch wire – as there is less friction and biding.
This review compares two minimally invasive approaches for accelerating orthodontic tooth movement in adults — microosteoperforations (MOPs) and platelet concentrates (PRP/PRF) with emphasis on the rate of canine retraction/tooth movement, patient-reported comfort and pain, and treatment-related adverse effects.
Overall, MOPs demonstrated greater acceleration, whereas PRP/PRF was generally associated with less pain and discomfort. Protocols and outcome measures varied across studies, limiting direct comparison and highlighting the need for additional headto- head trials.
Keywords: accelerated tooth movement , microosteoperforation, PRP/PRF in orthodontics, pain perception in OMT, side effects in OMT
Conflict of Interest: None
