ABSTRACT Objectives To investigate the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Invisalign's G5 protocol with virtual bite ramps in the treatment of adults with skeletal deep bites. Materials and Methods This retrospective study was conducted on consecutively treated adults presenting with skeletal deep bites as defined by the Overbite Depth Indicator (ODI). Subjects were divided into 2 groups: Invisalign group (n = 24) treated with the Invisalign G5 protocol and a full fixed appliance (FFA) group (n = 24) treated with edgewise FFAs and matched to the Invisalign group by ODI, sex, type of malocclusion, and non-extraction treatment. Pretreatment (T 1 ) and post–comprehensive treatment (T 2 ) lateral cephalograms were obtained and analyzed. Results Both the Invisalign and FFA groups showed significant changes from T 1 to T 2 in ODI and other skeletal and dentoalveolar measurements. The mean change in ODI was −1.5° ( P < .001) for the Invisalign group and −2.0° ( P < .001) for the FFA group. The mean decrease in overbite was 1.3 mm ( P < .001) and 2.0 mm ( P < .001) for the Invisalign and FFA groups, respectively. The mean increase in mandibular plane angle (Sn-GoGn) was 0.65° ( P = .003) for the Invisalign group and 1.15° ( P < .001) for the FFA group. When the groups were compared with each other, both ODI ( P = .03) and overbite ( P = .003) were significantly different in addition to other measurements. Conclusions Although FFA treatment had more apparent skeletal changes for deep bite adult patients when compared with Invisalign, both systems were effective in opening deep bites at dentoalveolar and skeletal levels.

ABSTRACT Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and efficiency of ultraviolet (UV) illumination compared to conventional white light in the detection of fluorescent-tagged adhesive remnants during orthodontic debonding. Materials and Methods: Orthodontic brackets were bonded to extracted human premolars using one of two bonding resins having fluorescent properties (Pad Lock, Reliance Orthodontics, Itasca, Ill; Opal Bond MV, Opal Orthodontics, South Jordan, Utah; n = 40 each). The brackets were then debonded and, in each adhesive group, half the teeth had the remaining adhesive resin removed under illumination using the operatory light and the other half using a UV (395 nm) light emitting diode (LED) flashlight (n = 20/group). Time for teeth cleanup was recorded. Follow-up images were obtained under a dissecting microscope using UV illumination, and the surface area of adhesive remnants was calculated. Effectiveness of adhesive removal was also assessed using scanning electron microscopy imaging. Analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze time and adhesive remnants, respectively. Results: Assessment using the dissecting microscope found groups using UV light during adhesive removal had statistically significantly lower amounts of adhesive remnants than groups using white light ( P ≤ .01). Time for adhesive removal was significantly lower with Opal Bond MV adhesive using UV light when compared with the white light ( P ≤ .01). Assessment by scanning electron microscopy showed that thin remnants of adhesive (<2 μm) remained undetected by UV illumination. Conclusions: UV light is more effective and tends to be more efficient than white light in the detection of fluorescent adhesive during orthodontic debonding. Although there are limitations, the use of UV LED lighting is a practical tool that aids in adhesive detection.