Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists Bulletin Spring 2022 - 47

Case Report
profitable treatment for my office. Extraction
spaces were successfully and efficiently closed
with the InBrace system while using power arms
as an auxiliary to avoid bowing effect. Posttreatment
photographs and digital study models
showed the mandibular crowding was resolved,
the maxillary arch was widened in the premolar
and canine areas in coordination with the mandibular
arch, a final stable Class I occlusion with
proper overbite, overjet, and improved smile arc
was established (Figures 9 and 10). The posttreatment
panoramic radiographic showed that
all roots appeared parallel and well positioned
(Figure 11). The posttreatment cephalometric
measurements and superimposition tracing
indicated primarily dentoalveolar changes, with
skeletal changes shown as normal forward and
downward growth. The maxillary and mandibular
superimpositions showed that the maxillary
(U1-SN from 106.4° to 103.8°) and mandibular
incisor inclinations (IMPA from 86.6° to 86.9°)
were well controlled. The improvement in overbite
and overjet came from mandibular incisor
retraction and minor maxillary and mandibular
incisor extrusion (Figures 11 and 12; Table 2).
The ABO Case Radiograph Evaluation Score was
13 (Figure 13). The patient and his parents were
very satisfied with his treatment result and their
choice of InBrace treatment.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Dr. Robert Lee for
his help in revising the manuscript.
Editor's Comments
When InBrace was officially launched during the
2017 AAO Annual Meeting in San Diego, California,
I had some doubt about this system's ability
to provide three-dimensional control of tooth
movement. The 2018 fall issue of the PCSO Bulletin
published Dr. Patrick Turley's interview with
Dr. John Pham, who talked about the InBrace
system and showed some cases.1
Later, in 2019,
Dr. Tong and his team introduced this system in
detail in the Journal of Clinical Orthodontics,2
for those orthodontists who are interested in
learning more about its design, biomechanics,
and applications, this article is highly recommended.
The editor congratulates Dr. Tong for
having successfully treated this extraction case
with great finishing, and this case report mostly
resolves my previous doubt.
and
Figure 10. Posttreatment digital dental models (B. L., 14 years, 9 months)
Figure 11. Posttreatment panoramic radiograph (left) and lateral cephalogram (right)
Table 2. Comparison of Prettreatment and Posttreatment Cephalometric
Measurements
Cephalometric
Measurement
SNA (°)
SNB (°)
ANB (°)
Wits (mm)
FMA (FH-MP) (°)
SN-MP (°)
U1-NA (mm)
U1-SN (°)
L1-NB (mm)
IMPA (L1-MP) (°)
Upper lip to E-line (mm)
Lower lip to E-line (mm)
Spring 2022 PCSO Bulletin
Norm
82.0
80.0
2.0
0.0
25.0
32.0
4.0
104.0
4.0
90.0
−4.0
−2.0
Pretreatment
79.6
77.8
1.9
−4.8
33.3
41.9
4.3
106.4
6.8
86.6
−0.4
0.7
Posttreatment
80.6
78.7
1.9
−4.1
31.3
40.4
3.4
103.8
4.2
86.9
−0.4
1.1
47
Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists Bulletin Spring 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists Bulletin Spring 2022
