Bilateral maxillary sinus aplasia is an extremely rare congenital anomaly. Only a few cases have been reported in the literature. We present a 24- year-old woman with bilateral maxillary sinus aplasia associated with the bilateral absence of the uncinate process and infundibular passage on CT images.

Background: Association of cuspid impaction with adjacent lateral incisor anomalies is under controversy. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between maxillary cuspid impaction with dental anomalies. Material and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, the material consisted of pretreatment dental records of 102 patients with at least one palatally or buccally displaced impacted permanent cuspid (palatal and buccal impaction groups). They were matched with a comparison control group of 102 patients having normally erupted maxillary cuspids. Available space, mesiodistal dimensions of teeth, and morphologic parameters of lateral incisors were measured using the digital caliper. Comparison of mean values of lateral incisors anomalies and severity of crowding between different groups were performed using the one-way ANOVA test, and the analysis of associations between position of the impaction and anomaly of the lateral incisors and severity of crowding was performed using the Chi-square test. P < 0. 05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the arch length-tooth size discrepancy between the cuspid impaction groups and control group. The impaction group (buccal or palatal) presented statistically significant differences in terms of anomalies of maxillary lateral incisor compared to the control group. Peg-shaped lateral incisor was related to buccal cuspid impaction and microdontia had relationship with palatal cuspid impaction. Conclusion: There is the relationship between cuspid impaction and adjacent lateral incisor abnormality, but no difference was observed between buccal and palatal cuspid impactions. Crowding revealed no relationship with cuspid impaction (buccal or palatal) in this study.

Background: Due to signifi cant eff ect of joint orthodontic and surgical treatment planning on the patients’ facial appearances, precise prediction of surgical outcomes is of great importance. Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the maxillary and mandibular centers of rotation and its distance to center of condyle (CC) in patients who underwent maxillary impaction surgery concomitant with mandibular advancement or setback surgery and also to determine the correlation between maxillary center of rotation (MxCR) with that of mandible (MnCR) and also the direction of rotation in distal and proximal segments of the mandible. Methods: Preoperative and postoperative lateral cephalograms of 24 adult non-syndromic patients were studied. Using cephalometric tracings MxCR was located as the intersection of ANS-PNS (preoperative) and ANS’-PNS’ (postoperative) lines. MnCR was located using Reuleaux method, where perpendicular bisectors of B-B’ and Go-Go’ lines meet. Using statistical analysis of correlation and comparison, all the points’ coordinates and centers of rotation were compared. Results: The average distance of MnCR to CC was 10. 45 cm and the average distance of MxCR to CC was 8. 39 cm. MxCR and MnCR had positive correlation in horizontal plane and they had negative correlation in vertical plane but the correlation was insignifi cant (P > 0. 05). In addition, there seemed to be no specifi c pattern in the direction of mandibular proximal and distal segments’ rotations. Conclusions: The results showed that: (1) The center of rotation calculated for mandible after bimaxillary surgery was not located within the condylar area. But generally whenever MxCR was closer to ANS, MnCR was located more anteriorly. (2) In patients with decreased distance between MxCR and SN line, MnCR would be located more superiorly. Also, whenever MxCR had greater distance from condyle, the MnCR to condyle distance was greater too. (3) The direction of rotation in proximal and distal segments of mandible had no specifi c pattern.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effect of bone-borne expansion (BBE) and tooth-borne expansion (TBE) in patients with maxillary constriction. Methods: Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched up to February 2019. Eligible clinical trials and cohort studies that studied the effects of bone-borne and tooth-borne expansion appliances on patients with constricted maxilla were selected. The study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were independently performed by two authors. Then, the random-effects meta-analysis and post-hoc heterogeneity tests were performed. Results: In the end, four studies were included in the present meta-analysis (i. e., a randomized clinical trial, two prospective controlled clinical trials, and a cohort study) that collected data from 117 patients. The mean differences between TBE and BBE were 0. 38 mm and-0. 28 mm for premolar and molar apices, 0. 67 mm and 1. 18 mm for premolar and molar crowns, 0. 19 mm and 0. 17 mm for alveolar bone in premolar and molar areas, and-0. 61 mm and 0. 02 mm for nasal and maxillary bones, respectively. Moreover, the differences between TBE and BBE for dental angulation were 3. 84◦ and 1. 52◦ for left and right molars, as well as 4. 85◦ and 3. 46◦ for left and right premolars, respectively. Conclusion: The BBE appliances do not have any advantages over tooth-borne devices with regard to the amount of skeletal or dental expansion; however, it seems to produce less tipping in posterior teeth.