A Cup of Coffee with Dr. Shivani Bhandari 

In this issue, Oral Pathologist Dr. Shivani Bhandari opens up about her inspiring path—from the first spark of ambition in her school days to navigating academic pressure, personal loss, and carving her own niche in the dental world.

💡 You’ll find:

  • Honest stories of resilience and motivation when life tests you the hardest.
  • Practical advice on balancing studies, hobbies, and responsibilities.
  • A refreshing reminder that dentistry is more than a profession—it’s a platform to innovate, teach, create, and inspire.

If you’re a dental student or young professional, this magazine isn’t just for reading—it’s for redefining what your future could look like.

👉 Dive in. Get inspired. Start shaping your own unique path in dentistry.

DOWNLOAD THE MAGAZINE HERE:

Vertical changes following orthodontic extraction treatment in skeletal open bite subjects

Managing skeletal anterior open bite (AOB) is one of the trickiest problems you’ll see in clinic. Decisions about which teeth to extract — or whether to extract at all — can change the vertical facial pattern, molar position, and ultimately whether the mandible rotates closed (helpful) or stays/re-rotates open (problematic). Understanding how extraction pattern, tooth movement, and growth stage interact helps you plan smarter treatments and set realistic expectations.

The study in one line

A prospective cephalometric study compared vertical/rotational changes in AOB patients treated with three extraction patterns: first premolars (E4)second premolars (E5), and first molars (E6) — and found that extraction choice (plus how posterior teeth move) influenced mandibular rotation. 

1. Extraction Choice & Mandibular Rotation

Extraction PatternSkeletal Open Bite InvolvementEffect on Mandibular Rotation
1st Premolars (E4)Anterior teeth onlyNo significant rotation.
2nd Premolars (E5)Extends to posterior teethClosing rotation
1st Molars (E6)Extends to posterior teethGreatest closing rotation

The logic behind those findings comes down to three biomechanical factors:

  1. Where the extraction space is (anterior vs. posterior in the arch)
  2. How molars move to close that space (translation vs. extrusion)
  3. How that movement interacts with mandibular rotation mechanics

2. Posterior Tooth Movement & Extrusion

  • E4: Greatest posterior tooth extrusion → prevents mandibular rotation.
    • The more teeth you move forward, the harder it is to prevent some extrusion of molars during protraction (especially without TADs or intrusion mechanics).
  • E5: Limited posterior extrusion → rotation occurs.
    • This shorter movement path makes vertical control easier — fewer teeth to drag along, less tendency for extrusion.
    • Reduced extrusion allows the posterior occlusal contacts to move out of the “palatomandibular wedge” and encourages mandibular closing rotation (SN–GoGn, SGn–NBa decrease).
  • E6: Large forward movement of molars with minimal extrusion → maximum rotation.
    • Posterior occlusal “block” is eliminated quickly, and molars protract mostly horizontally rather than extruding.
    • With posterior teeth moving forward and out of the wedge, the mandible is free to rotate up and forward the most.

3. Cephalometric Change Patterns

VariableE4E5E6
SN–GoGn↔ (no change)↓↓ (largest decrease)
SGn–NBa↑↑
ANS–Me / Na–Me↑↑ (largest increase)↑ (smallest)
Upper Molar–Palatal Plane↑↑
Lower Molar–Mand. Plane↑↑ (largest)

4. Clinical Tips

  • For AOB limited to anterior teeth: First premolar extraction may not help rotation—consider vertical control strategies.
    • Use gable bends, TADs for anchorage/vertical control, intrusion mechanics if needed.
    • Avoid mechanics or auxiliaries that encourage molar extrusion during space closure.
  • For AOB involving posterior teeth: Second premolar or first molar extraction preferred to facilitate mandibular closing rotation.
  • Minimize posterior tooth extrusion during protraction to enhance rotation.
  • Treat after peak pubertal growth spurt – less natural extrusion tendency — greater chance of controlled molar protraction and closing rotation.

5. Pearls for exams & case presentations

When presenting a case, include: vertical pattern, extent of AOB, growth indicators (hand–wrist/CS stage), extraction rationale, and how you’ll control vertical molar movement.

Don’t equate “extraction = guaranteed closing rotation.” The pattern of tooth movement (extrusion vs. translation) and growth stage are decisive. 

Spotify Episode Link: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/dr-anisha-valli/episodes/Vertical-changes-following-orthodontic-extraction-treatment-in-skeletal-open-bite-subjects-e36qgc5

Sucking habits and facial hyperdivergency as risk factors for anterior open bite in the mixed dentition

1. Core Clinical Facts

  • Prevalence of AOB in mixed dentition: 17.7% (~1 in 5 orthodontic patients)
  • Major independent risk factors:
    1. Prolonged sucking habits (thumb/finger or dummy) beyond age 3
    2. Facial hyperdivergency (skeletal vertical excess)
  • Highest risk group: Patients with both prolonged sucking habits + hyperdivergent face
    • AOB prevalence 36.3% → ~4× higher than those without risk factors (9.1%)

2. Diagnostic Criteria

AOB Diagnosis: Overbite ≤ 0 mm, with all permanent incisors fully erupted.

Facial Hyperdivergency:

  • FMA ≥ 25°
  • S-Go / N-Me ≤ 0.62 (posterior:anterior facial height ratio)
  • ANS-Me / N-Me ≥ 0.55 (increased lower anterior facial height)

3. Clinical Takeaways

  • Mechanical factor (habit) + skeletal factor (hyperdivergency) = high AOB risk
  • Early habit cessation (before age 3) dramatically lowers risk
  • Skeletal vertical excess can worsen severity of AOB and affect treatment stability
  • Interceptive protocols:
    • Habit-breaking appliances (removable/fixed grids)
    • Growth modification to control vertical dimension (eg, high-pull headgear, bite blocks)

Nonnutritive Sucking Habits & Occlusal Effects in Mixed Dentition

🎯 3-5-7 Rule for Duration & Risk

  • Stop by 3 → Minimal risk
  • Stop after 5 → Moderate risk (AOB, PXB start appearing)
  • Stop after 7 → High risk (Multiple malocclusions likely)

🍼 Pacifier vs. 👍 Digit — Think “Short vs. Strong”

  • Pacifier = Short habit (≈14 mo), causes AOB + Class II if ≥4 yrs
  • Digit = Strong persistence (≈33 mo), causes AOB if ≥5 yrs

Risk by Habit Duration (Any Habit)

DurationAnterior Open BitePosterior Crossbite≥4 mm OverjetBilateral Class II≥1 Malocclusion
< 36 mo4%9%29%29%53%
36–59 mo12%18%28%29%51%
≥ 60 mo27%20%40%39%76%

Pacifier vs. Digit Habit Impact

FeaturePacifierDigit
Typical DurationShorter (mean ~14 mo)Longer (mean ~33 mo)
Strongest Malocclusion LinkAOB & Class II molarAOB (≥60 mo)
Arch Form ImpactNarrower maxillary arch; occasional PXBLess arch narrowing, but more vertical changes

Quick Statistics for Parent Communication

  • Digit ≥60 mo → 26% have AOB despite habit cessation.
  • Over 50% of mixed dentition children show ≥1 malocclusion.
  • AOB prevalence jumps from 4% (<36 mo) to 27% (≥60 mo).
  • Pacifier ≥48 mo → 54% have Class II molars.

Canine Bracket Guide for Substitution Cases

When a maxillary lateral incisor is missing, substituting the canine into its place can produce excellent esthetic and functional results — but only if torque control is done right. One of the most common errors? Inadequate palatal root torque in the relocated canine.

Why Torque Matters

The canine crown is bulkier, and without enough palatal root torque, its prominence can disrupt smile esthetics and compromise occlusion. The right bracket choice helps counteract this.

Bracket Options & Prescriptions (MBT*)

Bracket ChoiceTorque / TipKey AdvantagesNotes
Maxillary Central Incisor+17° torque / 4° tipMaximum palatal root torqueEnameloplasty needed; add up to +4° distal root tip
Maxillary Lateral Incisor+10° torque / 8° tipGood torque & tip control; easy placementEnameloplasty needed
Flipped Maxillary Canine+7° torque / 8° tipTorque & tip control without reshapingMay not give enough torque
Flipped Mandibular 2nd Premolar+17° torque / 2° tipMax torque without enameloplastyRemove bracket posts after bonding

*Modified for Roth or Damon prescriptions if needed.


Torque Tips

  • “1 to 5 Rule”: Every .001″ slot–wire play ≈ 5° torque loss
    • .017″×.025″ in .018″ slot → 5° loss
    • .019″×.025″ in .022″ slot → 10–15° loss
  • This is why an .018 slot system with .017×.025 wire tends to have better torque control than a .022 slot with .019×.025 wire, assuming same bracket prescription.
  • If you want to minimize torque loss, you either:
    • Use the largest possible wire for that slot
    • Or add auxiliary torque (e.g., torquing springs, step-out bends)
  • Labial step-out bend → adds palatal root torque + avoids traumatic contact.
  • Labial step-out bends shift the canine root palatally, improving torque and interproximal contact while minimizing occlusal interference.

Example 1: .017″ × .025″ wire in a .018″ slot

  • Slot height = 0.018″
  • Wire height = 0.017″
  • Difference (play) = 0.001″
  • Torque loss = 0.001″ × 5° = ≈ 5° loss

So even with a nearly full-size wire, you can’t get 100% torque expression — there’s some rotational freedom before the wire contacts the slot walls.

Example 2: .019″ × .025″ wire in a .022″ slot

  • Slot height = 0.022″
  • Wire height = 0.019″
  • Difference (play) = 0.003″
  • Torque loss = 0.003″ × 5° = ≈ 15° loss

Why the guide says 10–15° instead of exactly 15°:

  • Theoretical loss = 15° (from math)
  • In practice, clinical torque loss is often slightly less because:
    • Residual tip in the tooth means the wire contacts sooner than expected
    • Manufacturing tolerances (slots often oversized, wires slightly undersized or rounded)
    • The wire may seat differently under ligation forces

    Other Factors Influencing Torque

    • Archwire material (SS > TMA > NiTi for high torque)
    • Bracket material
    • Type of ligation
    • Interbracket distance
    • Tooth morphology & biology

    Clinical Pearls

    • Delay enameloplasty if unsure → choose flipped mandibular 2nd premolar for torque & base fit.
    • Canine extrusion improves gingival architecture but monitor occlusion.
    • For high torque (>24°), beta titanium is safer than SS for bends.
    • Beta titanium offers a balance between torque delivery and flexibility, making it preferable for large bends compared to the stiffness of stainless steel.

    📌 Reference: Kravitz ND, Miller S, Prakash A, Eapen JC. Canine Bracket Guide for Substitution Cases. J Clin Orthod. 2017;51(8):452-455.


    Evaluation of alveolar bone loss following rapid maxillary expansion (RME) using CBCT

    Rapid Maxillary Expansion (RME) is a time-tested solution for correcting maxillary constriction, improving arch length, and resolving posterior crossbites. But while the skeletal and dental benefits are well known, there’s an equally important consideration: its impact on the supporting alveolar bone.

    The forces generated during RME are substantial. They not only separate the midpalatal suture but also transmit stress to teeth and their supporting tissues.
    Consequences may include:

    • Buccal crown tipping
    • Crestal bone loss
    • Changes in buccal and palatal cortical bone thickness
    • Development of dehiscence and fenestrations

    Understanding these risks allows us to tailor treatment, improve patient outcomes, and safeguard periodontal health.

    Appliance & Protocol

    • Type: Hyrax-type tooth-borne expander
    • Activation: 2 turns/day until palatal cusps of maxillary posterior teeth contact buccal cusps of mandibular teeth
    • Retention: 3 months with expander in situ → replaced with transpalatal arch for another 3 months

    Key CBCT Findings

    ParameterImmediate Post-RMEAfter 6-Month Retention
    Buccal Cortical Bone Thickness (BCBT)Significant decrease in canines, premolars, and especially first molarsContinued decrease in most teeth
    Palatal Cortical Bone Thickness (PCBT)Slight increase (due to buccal tipping)Decrease toward baseline
    Buccal Alveolar Height (BAH)Significant reduction (crestal bone loss)No further change
    DehiscenceIncreased incidence post-RME (esp. buccal surfaces of 1st premolars & molars, canines)Further increase in some teeth
    FenestrationSlight decrease post-RMEMinimal further change

    Red Flags During RME

    • Sudden gingival recession on anchor teeth
    • Mobility in first molars/premolars
    • Soft tissue inflammation unresponsive to hygiene measures
    • Persistent discomfort or occlusal changes

    Tips to Minimize Bone Loss

    • Avoid over-activation (follow 0.25 mm × 2/day protocol)
    • Consider tissue-borne or hybrid expanders in high-risk cases
    • Maintain optimal oral hygiene (chlorhexidine rinse during activation phase)
    • Use minimally invasive retention appliances post-expansion

    Reference:
    Baysal A, Uysal T, Veli I, et al. Evaluation of alveolar bone loss following rapid maxillary expansion using cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2013;43(2):83–9

    Spotify Episode Link:
    https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/dr-anisha-valli/episodes/Evaluation-of-alveolar-bone-loss-following-rapid-maxillary-expansion-using-cone-beam-computed-tomography-e36n10v

    Youtube Video Link:
    https://youtu.be/jhNngR5s-1I?si=MqOZ4slL22G1-EDu

    Orthodontic forces and moments of three-bracket geometries

    Ever rebonded a canine bracket, only to see the lateral incisor intrude, the midline shift, and your occlusal plane do a little dance? 😅 Don’t worry—you’re not alone. These surprises aren’t just clinical quirks—they’re biomechanical consequences, and a recent study has finally given us a powerful tool to predict them.

    🧠 The Backstory: Burstone & Koenig’s Legacy

    Back in 1974, Burstone and Koenig introduced the idea of analyzing two-bracket geometries to simplify the chaos of indeterminate force systems. Their theory? If you break the arch into two-bracket segments, you can analyze and predict forces more accurately.

    But here’s the catch: until now, no one had really tested what happens when you add a third bracket.

    🔬 The 2025 Breakthrough: Kei et al. to the Rescue

    In this beautifully designed experimental study, Kei and team tested 36 different three-bracket geometries  using a custom-made orthodontic force jig and high-sensitivity transducers, and various archwires (NiTi, TMA, SS).

    Their setup mimicked real-world clinical brackets and angles. The goals?

    ✔️ Validate whether a three-bracket system behaves like two adjacent two-bracket systems
    ✔️ Understand how the third bracket (C) affects the system
    ✔️ Apply these insights to predictable clinical outcomes

    And guess what? The theory held true!

    Bracket angulations were varied systematically to replicate six classic geometries (Classes 1 to 6), and the impact of a third bracket (Bracket C) was studied.

    📊 Clinical Geometry Classifications

    Geometry ClassBracket A AngleBracket B AngleBracket C Angle
    Class 1.1–1.6+30°+30°+30° to –30°
    Class 2.1–2.6+15°+30°+30° to –30°
    Class 3.1–3.6+30°+30° to –30°
    Class 4.1–4.6–15°+30°+30° to –30°
    Class 5.1–5.6–22.5°+30°+30° to –30°
    Class 6.1–6.6–30°+30°+30° to –30°

    🧲 What You Need to Know (and Remember!)

    📌 Clinical Application Tips

    • 🌀 Bracket C primarily influences Bracket B – Consider when finishing or rebonding.
    • ⚖️ Unintended Effects: Uplighting one tooth may intrude/extrude or tip adjacent teeth.
    • 🎯 Lighter Wires = Less Side Effects: NiTi < TMA < SS in force magnitude.
      • 0.016 SS > Highest force and moment delivery
      • 0.020 NiTi (Supercable) > Lowest force, gentler on tissues
      • Using a lighter wire in finishing can prevent overcorrection and limit undesirable biomechanical effects.
    • 🧠 Use 3-bracket force maps (e.g., Class 3.3) to anticipate vertical and moment forces on neighboring teeth.

    ⚠️ Common Side Effects to Watch For

    Intended MovementPossible Side Effects
    Root uprighting of canine (Class 3.3)Intrusion of adjacent incisor, extrusion of premolar, midline shift
    Rebonding caninesOcclusal cant, open bite at lateral, heavy contact at premolar
    High forces (>250g)Risk of root resorption, supporting tissue damage


    🔑 Mnemonic Strategy to Remember Three-Bracket Geometries

    🌟 BASIC STRUCTURE

    Each geometry is labeled as Class X.Y, where:

    • X (1 to 6) = Refers to the Bracket A angle
    • Y (1 to 6) = Refers to the Bracket C angle
    • Bracket B is always fixed at +30°

    📐 ANGLE MAP

    ClassBracket A Angle (°)MnemonicTrend
    1+30°1 = HighMax angle (tip forward)
    2+15°2 = Half High
    33 = ZeroNeutral
    4–15°4 = FallStarts tipping back
    5–22.5°5 = Fall More
    6–30°6 = SinkMax tip back
    .YBracket C Angle (°)MnemonicTrend
    .1+30°1 = Copy BSame as Bracket B
    .2+15°2 = Half B
    .33 = Neutral
    .4–15°4 = Tip Back
    .5–22.5°5 = Tip More
    .6–30°6 = Opposite BOpposite angle

    🔁 PATTERN TRICK

    All 36 combinations follow this logic:

    • A is fixed per Class (gets more negative from Class 1 to 6)
    • C follows six steps from +30° to –30°
    • B is always +30°

    Think of it as:

    A changes row-wiseC changes column-wiseB is your reference anchor.


    🧠 MEMORY AID SENTENCE

    To recall the progression of angulations in each bracket:

    “Always B-fixed, A-falls down, C-steps down.”

    Where:

    • “B-fixed” = Bracket B always at +30°
    • “A-falls down” = A goes from +30 → –30 by Class (1 to 6)
    • “C-steps down” = C decreases from +30 → –30 across each class (.1 to .6)

    📌 EXAMPLE TO ILLUSTRATE

    Class 3.5 means:

    • A = 0° (Class 3)
    • B = +30° (Always)
    • C = –22.5° (Step .5)

    Interpretation: Neutral alignment at A, standard alignment at B, and backward tip at C.


    📝 FINAL THOUGHTS

    Orthodontics is as much about engineering as it is about esthetics. As a student, if you take the time to understand the mechanics behind wire-bracket interactions—especially in three-bracket systems—you’ll not only improve treatment outcomes but also develop the foresight to prevent complications before they arise.

    So, the next time you’re rebonding a bracket or adjusting a wire, ask yourself: Which geometry am I working with?
    That one question might save you (and your patient) from a lot of unexpected surprises.

    SPOTIFY EPISODE LINK: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/dr-anisha-valli/episodes/Orthodontic-Forces-and-Moments-of-Three-Bracket-Geometries-e36gkfa

    Zygomaticomaxillary modifications in the horizontal plane induced by micro-implant-supported skeletal expander

    ✅ Clinical Device

    Maxillary Skeletal Expander (MSE)

    • Type: Micro-implant-supported expander (MARPE)
    • Anchorage: 4 bicortical miniscrews (palatal + nasal cortex)
    • Placement: Posterior palate
    • Expansion rate:
      • 2 turns/day until diastema
      • Then 1 turn/day
    • Retention: ≥ 3 months post-expansion

    📈 CBCT-Based Findings

    Linear Skeletal Changes

    ParameterMean Increase
    Anterior Inter-Maxillary Distance (AIMD)+2.76 mm
    Posterior Inter-Zygomatic Distance (PIZD)+2.40 mm
    Posterior Inter-Temporal Distance (PITD)Negligible

    Angular Changes

    ParameterMean Increase
    Zygomatic Process Angle (ZPA)Right: +1.7°  Left: +2.1°
    Zygomaticotemporal Angle (ZTA)Negligible

    📌 Key Biomechanical Concepts

    • Rotation Center:
      Near the proximal zygomatic process of temporal bone
      (more posterior/lateral than in tooth-borne expanders)
    • Movement Pattern:
      Lateral + Forward movement of maxilla + zygomaticomaxillary complex
    • Bone Bending:
      Occurs at zygomatic process of temporal bone (adaptive mechanism)

    🔬 Clinical Implications

    • Achieves parallel midpalatal suture opening
    • Disarticulates pterygopalatine suture
    • Minimal buccal tipping of molars
    • Suitable for late adolescent to adult patients (13.9–26.2 yrs in study)

    🧠 Quick Notes

    • Use CBCT before & after expansion to analyze changes
    • Avoid brackets/appliances until post-expansion imaging complete
    • Monitor miniscrew engagement in both cortices on initial scan

    📍 Source: Cantarella et al., Progress in Orthodontics, 2018
    🧪 IRB Approved Study | UCLA Orthodontic Clinic
    🔍 DOI: 10.1186/s40510-018-0240-2


    SPOTIFY LINK: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4T9qeiRFJ99mZ3gdHnOA4c?si=OuVPNWyKRsmoJjtXUrhyRA

    Understanding Herbst Appliance Mechanics: The Game-Changing Research Every Orthodontic Student Should Know 🦷⚙️

    Hey future orthodontists! 👋 Ready to dive deep into one of the most fascinating pieces of research in functional orthodontics? Today we’re breaking down Voudouris et al.’s groundbreaking study on condyle-fossa modifications during Herbst treatment. This isn’t just another research paper – it’s a paradigm shift that changes how we understand functional appliances!

    Why This Research Matters 🎯

    For decades, we’ve been taught that functional appliances work through lateral pterygoid muscle hyperactivity. But what if that’s completely wrong? This study flips the script and introduces the revolutionary Growth Relativity Theory.

    Study Overview 📊

    Study ComponentDetails
    Sample Size56 subjects total
    Primate Subjects15 cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis)
    Human Subjects17 Herbst patients + 24 controls
    Key Focus8 juvenile primates (24-36 months)
    Treatment Duration6, 12, and 18 weeks
    Activation Amount4-8mm progressive advancement

    The Revolutionary Methodology 🔬

    What made this study special? Three cutting-edge techniques that previous research lacked:

    1. Permanent EMG Electrodes 📡

    • Old method: Temporary, transcutaneous electrodes
    • New method: Surgically implanted permanent electrodes
    • Muscles monitored: Superior and inferior lateral pterygoid, masseter, anterior digastric

    2. Tetracycline Vital Staining 💡

    • Intravenous tetracycline injection every 6 weeks
    • Fluorescence microscopy with UV light
    • Result: Crystal-clear visualization of new bone formation

    3. Computerized Histomorphometry 🖥️

    • Quantitative analysis of bone formation
    • Measured area and thickness of new bone
    • Statistical validation of results

    The Shocking Results That Changed Everything 😱

    What Everyone Expected vs. What Actually Happened

    Traditional TheoryActual Findings
    ⬆️ Lateral pterygoid hyperactivity⬇️ DECREASED muscle activity
    Muscle-driven growthViscoelastic tissue-driven growth
    Unpredictable resultsConsistent, reproducible changes

    Key Findings Summary 📈

    1. Super Class I Malocclusion Development: All experimental subjects developed severe Class I relationships
    2. Glenoid Fossa Remodeling: Forward and downward growth (opposite to natural backward growth)
    3. Condylar Growth Enhancement: Increased mandibular length in all subjects
    4. Muscle Activity Paradox: Growth occurred with DECREASED EMG activity

    The Growth Relativity Theory Explained 🧠

    Think of it like this: Imagine the retrodiskal tissues as a giant elastic band 🎸 stretched between the condyle and fossa.

    Displaced Condyle ←→ [Stretched Retrodiskal Tissues] ←→ Glenoid Fossa
    ↓ ↓
    Radiating Growth Radiating Growth

    Clinical Scenario 💭

    Patient: 14-year-old with severe Class II, mandibular retrognathism
    Traditional thinking: “The Herbst will make the lateral pterygoid muscles work harder to grow the condyle”
    Reality: The Herbst creates reciprocal stretch forces that stimulate bone formation through mechanical transduction, not muscle hyperactivity!

    Treatment Contributions Breakdown 📊

    The researchers found that achieving a 7mm change along the occlusal plane involved multiple factors:

    Contributing FactorPercentage Contribution
    Condylar Growth22-46%
    Glenoid Fossa Modification6-32%
    Maxillary ChangesVariable
    Dental Changes~30%
    Total Orthopedic Effect~70%
    Total Orthodontic Effect~30%

    Flowchart: Treatment Outcomes by Age

        Patient Age Assessment

    ┌─────────┴─────────┐
    ↓ ↓
    Juvenile/Mixed Adolescent/Adult
    Dentition Dentition
    ↓ ↓
    High Condylar Limited Condylar
    Growth Potential Growth Potential
    ↓ ↓
    Significant Fossa Mainly Fossa
    + Condylar Changes Changes Only

    Clinical Implications by Age 👶👦👨

    Age GroupCondylar ResponseFossa ResponseClinical Recommendation
    Juvenile (Mixed Dentition)High ✅High ✅Optimal treatment timing
    AdolescentModerate ⚠️High ✅Good treatment timing
    AdultLimited ❌Moderate ⚠️Consider alternatives

    The Herbst-Block Design Innovation 🔧

    Key design feature: 1.5mm posterior occlusal overlays

    Why This Matters:

    • Vertical distraction of condyle from articular eminence
    • Prevents condylar resorption
    • Avoids TMJ compression
    • Optimizes stretch forces on retrodiskal tissues

    Treatment Timeline and Bone Formation 📅

    Progressive Changes Over Time

    Time PointBone Formation AreaKey Observations
    6 weeksEarly changesExtensive cartilage proliferation
    12 weeks1.2mm averagePeak bone formation rate
    18 weeksMaximum responseDoubled postglenoid spine thickness

    Correlation: r = 0.95 between treatment time and bone formation! 📈

    Clinical Decision-Making Flowchart 🗺️

      Class II Patient Evaluation

    Age Assessment

    ┌─────────┴─────────┐
    ↓ ↓
    Mixed Dentition Permanent Dentition
    ↓ ↓
    Herbst with Consider Herbst vs
    Occlusal Coverage Alternative Treatment
    ↓ ↓
    Continuous Monitor for:
    Activation - Condylar resorption
    1-2mm every - Disk displacement
    10-15 days - Relapse potential

    Key Clinical Takeaways for Practice 💡

    Do’s and Don’ts

    ✅ DO❌ DON’T
    Use continuous activationRely on intermittent wear
    Include occlusal coverageIgnore vertical dimension
    Monitor for 6+ monthsExpect immediate results
    Plan retention carefullyAssume permanent changes

    Red Flags to Watch For 🚩

    1. Condylar resorption – prevented by proper vertical dimension
    2. TMJ pain – indicates excessive compression
    3. Rapid relapse – inadequate retention period
    4. Disk displacement – poor appliance design

    The Retention Challenge 🔄

    Critical Finding: Without adequate retention, positive condyle-fossa changes can relapse due to:

    • Return of anterior digastric muscle function
    • Perimandibular connective tissue pull
    • Natural tendency for condyle to seat posteriorly

    Retention Protocol Recommendations:

    • Minimum 6 months active retention
    • Progressive reduction of appliance wear
    • Monitor muscle reattachment process
    • Long-term follow-up essential

    Clinical Scenario Application 🎯

    Case: 13-year-old female, Class II Division 1, severe mandibular retrognathism

    Treatment Plan Based on Research:

    1. Herbst with occlusal coverage (NOT standard Herbst)
    2. Progressive activation 1.5mm every 2 weeks
    3. 12-week minimum treatment duration
    4. Expect 70% orthopedic response
    5. Plan extended retention phase

    Expected Outcomes:

    • Forward fossa remodeling
    • Increased mandibular length
    • Super Class I result requiring finishing
    • Need for comprehensive retention protocol

    Future Implications 🔮

    This research suggests that functional appliances should be renamed “dentofacial orthopedic appliances” because they work through:

    • Viscoelastic tissue forces
    • Mechanical transduction
    • Growth modification, NOT muscle function

    Study Limitations and Considerations ⚖️

    Strengths:

    • Rigorous methodology with multiple validation techniques
    • Control groups and statistical analysis
    • Novel technological approaches

    Limitations:

    • Animal model – translation to humans requires validation
    • Small sample size – justified but limits generalizability
    • Short-term follow-up – long-term stability unknown

    Conclusion: Changing Clinical Practice 🎯

    This groundbreaking research fundamentally changes how we understand functional appliances. The key shifts in thinking:

    1. From muscle hyperactivity → To tissue stretch forces
    2. From unpredictable results → To consistent orthopedic changes
    3. From simple tooth movement → To complex TMJ remodeling
    4. From empirical treatment → To evidence-based protocols

    Memory Aid for Boards 📚

    “VOUDOURIS RULES” 🧠

    • Viscoelastic forces drive change
    • Occlusal coverage prevents resorption
    • Undermining old muscle theories
    • Decreased EMG activity during growth
    • Orthopedic effects dominate (70%)
    • Underaged patients respond best
    • Retention critical for stability
    • Inferior-anterior fossa growth
    • Super Class I results expected

    Questions for Self-Assessment 🤔

    1. What percentage of Herbst treatment effects are orthopedic vs orthodontic?
    2. Why does EMG activity decrease during successful treatment?
    3. What prevents condylar resorption in Herbst appliances?
    4. At what age is condylar growth potential highest?
    5. What is the Growth Relativity Theory?

    Remember: This research doesn’t just change what we know about Herbst appliances – it revolutionizes our understanding of functional orthodontics entirely! 🚀

    Keep studying, future orthodontists! The field is constantly evolving, and staying current with research like this will make you better clinicians. 📖✨

    A Modification to Enable Controlled Progressive Advancement of the Twin Block Appliance

    Welcome to an exciting exploration of one of the most innovative modifications in functional orthodontics! As orthodontic students, mastering the nuances of appliance design and modification is crucial for your future success. Today, we’re diving deep into the groundbreaking Twin Block advancement modification developed by Carmichael, Banks, and Chadwick – a system that has transformed how we approach Class II treatment with enhanced precision and patient comfort.

    🎯 Why This Modification Matters for Your Future Practice

    The Twin Block appliance, introduced by Clark in 1982, has become one of the most popular functional appliances in the United Kingdom and is arguably the most successful in treating Class II division 1 malocclusions. However, the original design had significant limitations that this modification brilliantly addresses.

    The Problem with Traditional Twin Block Reactivation 🚫

    • Inconvenient chairside acrylic additions
    • Unpleasant taste and smell for patients
    • Inaccuracy due to polymerization shrinkage
    • Time-consuming laboratory modifications
    • Limited ability to make small, gradual adjustments

    Understanding the Core Principle

    The modification incorporates stainless steel screws with conical heads into the upper appliance blocks, maintaining the crucial 70-degree inclined plane effect regardless of screw rotation. This ingenious design allows for controlled, measurable advancement using polyacetal spacers.

    Technical Specifications: What You Need to Know

    ComponentSpecificationClinical Purpose
    Stainless Steel Screws3mm diameter, 18/8 M3 gradeProvide structural strength and stability
    Screw140° included angle (70° working angle)Maintain 70° inclined plane regardless of rotation
    Screw Lengths12mm and 16mm (longer for >5mm advancement)Accommodate various advancement needs
    Spacers MaterialPolyacetal co-polymer resinEnable precise, measurable advancement
    Spacer Lengths1mm, 2mm, 3mm, 4mm, 5mmAllow stepwise progression (2-3mm typical)
    Spacer Diameter6mm diameterEnsure proper fit and function
    Thread HousingInjection-molded acetal resin with lateral tagsPrevent fractures and ensure consistent fit

    The treatment process follows a logical, patient-friendly progression that maximizes compliance and comfort while achieving optimal results.

    Phase 1: Initial Construction and Setup

    1. Bite Registration: Take protrusive wax bite with comfortable advancement (may be as little as 2-3mm in some patients)
    2. Screw Installation: Insert 3mm diameter stainless steel screws with 140° conical heads into upper blocks
    3. Initial Delivery: Begin treatment with screws inserted without any spacers

    Phase 2: Progressive Advancement

    • Monitoring: Assess overjet reduction at each visit
    • Advancement: Add 1-5mm polyacetal spacers between screw heads and blocks
    • Typical Increments: 2-3mm per advancement visit
    • Maximum Advancement: Up to 9mm using longer 16mm screws

    🎭 Clinical Scenarios: Real-World Applications

    Scenario 1: The Dolichofacial Challenge 😰

    Patient: 12-year-old female with long face pattern

    • Challenge: Weak craniomandibular musculature, poor tolerance for large protrusions
    • Traditional Problem: Patient bites blocks together instead of maintaining protrusive position
    • Modified Solution: Start with minimal 2mm advancement, progress gradually with 1-2mm spacers
    • Outcome: Improved compliance and comfort, successful Class II correction

    Scenario 2: The Large Overjet Case 📏

    Patient: 13-year-old male with 12mm overjet

    • Challenge: Requires significant mandibular advancement but limited initial tolerance
    • Traditional Problem: Would require multiple appliance remakes or uncomfortable large advances
    • Modified Solution: Begin with comfortable 3mm advancement, systematically add spacers over 6 months
    • Outcome: Achieved 9mm total advancement with excellent patient acceptance

    Scenario 3: The Asymmetric Correction 🎯

    Patient: 11-year-old with Class II and dental centerline deviation

    • Challenge: Need for different advancement amounts on each side
    • Traditional Problem: Difficult to achieve asymmetric correction with conventional methods
    • Modified Solution: Use different spacer lengths – 3mm right side, 5mm left side
    • Outcome: Successful centerline correction along with Class II improvement

    Scenario 4: The Class III Application 🔄

    Patient: 10-year-old with developing Class III malocclusion

    • Challenge: Requires gradual reactivation for optimal growth modification
    • Modified Solution: Incorporate screws into maxillary appliance for controlled reactivation
    • Advantage: Small increments reduce patient discomfort and improve compliance

    🎨 Material Science: Understanding Polyacetal Resin

    Why Polyacetal is Perfect for This Application:

    • Strength: 10 times stronger than conventional acrylic resin
    • Safety: Non-toxic and non-allergenic properties
    • Durability: High resistance to surface wear and low water absorption
    • Workability: Can be trimmed and polished with standard dental instruments
    • Biocompatibility: Proven safe for intraoral use over extended periods

    🎯 Facial Pattern Considerations: Tailored Treatment Approaches

    Facial PatternCharacteristicsTreatment ConsiderationsRecommended Approach
    Dolichofacial (Long Face)Weak craniomandibular musculatureLess tolerance for large protrusions, gradual advancement essentialStart with 2-3mm advancement, progress gradually
    Brachyfacial (Short Face)Deep overbites presentOverbite reduction more problematic due to reduced block trimmingUse Phase 1 appliance or plan fixed appliances to follow
    Mesofacial (Average)Balanced growth patternStandard advancement protocol works wellStandard 2-3mm increments per visit
    Class III CasesRequires gradual reactivationSmall increments of reactivation necessaryUtilize modification for controlled gradual advancement

    💡 Clinical Tips for Success

    For Dolichofacial Patients 📐

    • Start conservatively with minimal advancement
    • Monitor for tendency to bite blocks together
    • Consider Phase 1 appliance for overbite reduction
    • Emphasize proper appliance positioning during sleep

    For Brachyfacial Patients 🔽

    • Plan for overbite management strategies:
      • Option 1: Use initial upper removable appliance (Phase 1)
      • Option 2: Gradual Twin Block wear reduction during retention
      • Option 3: Upper removable retainer with anterior inclined bite plane

    General Clinical Guidelines 📋

    • Advancement Frequency: Every 3-4 weeks based on patient adaptation
    • Typical Increments: 2-3mm spacers for most patients
    • Maximum Achievement: Up to 9mm total advancement reported
    • Block Height Requirement: Minimum 6mm between second premolars

    ⚠️ Troubleshooting Common Issues

    Problem: Block Cracking After Advancement 🔧

    Cause: Inadequate block height or retrospective screw insertion
    Prevention: Ensure adequate 6mm block height, incorporate screws during initial construction
    Solution: Use screw thread housing system for reinforcement

    Problem: Difficulty Removing Screws 🔄

    Cause: Direct screw insertion into acrylic creating tight fit
    Solution: Use screw thread housing to facilitate easy removal and adjustment

    Problem: Screw Alignment Issues 📏

    Cause: Manual positioning without proper guides
    Solution: Use alignment rods during construction for precise positioning

    SPOTIFY LINK: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Nrv4Z2HB1AWzmvTphGnb5?si=BvSquCggS2CPKQggskdNrQ