Jury Score – Mauricio González – Case 1 – Orthodontic Treatment
Diagnosis and treatment plan
5
Case Complexity
8
Quality of case documentation (Images)
10
Quality of case documentation (Text)
10
Accuracy of the execution of clinical procedures
7
Low degree of invasiveness
5
The quality of the immediate result (Post-op)
8
Follow-up
7
Stability over time of the result
10
Comments
Although the case is difficult, There was two more situations that contributed to the laterognathia to the left side of this patient, the first one is that there was a possible left condylar fracture at the level of the neck cof the left condyle (should ask the patient in the medicakl history of previous trauma) and second, is that the position of the left condyle was very posterior and superior and these two situations should have been mentioned. Another observation is that, although the appliance they used was adequate, and they distalize the left upper hemiarch, they should also have used more Class II elastics on the left side to advance the lower left dentition as well as the position of the condyle. At the final result of the treatment there was lack/abscence of interproximal contact points (spaces) between the upper right central and lateral, and also there was a space between the upper left lateral and left cuspid. And also thee lower midline was still shifted 1 mm to the left. I think they should have mentioned that for retention, they should have used a Functional Occlusal Splint for the upper arch to avoid further TMD Problems for this patient.