The Angle orthodontist最新文献

{"title":"Treatment outcomes, efficiency and complications of customized ceramic brackets compared with conventional fixed orthodontic appliances.","authors":"Behnoosh Hormozi, Thais Fernandes Poleti, Luis Romero, Maria Luna Montes, Taranpreet Chandhoke, Chia-Ling Kuo, Kelin Zhong, Flavio Uribe","doi":"10.2319/030326-188.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2319/030326-188.1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare treatment outcomes, efficiency, and bracket-related complications between customized ceramic brackets (LightForce) and conventional appliances.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 75 patients treated in a private orthodontic practice (LightForce, n = 36; conventional, n = 39). Pretreatment malocclusion severity was assessed using the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index (ABO-DI). The primary outcome, treatment outcome quality, was assessed using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS). Secondary outcomes related to treatment efficiency and bracket-related complications were assessed by treatment duration, number of scheduled and emergency visits, and bracket failures. Between-group comparisons were conducted using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables and Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pretreatment ABO-DI scores were comparable between groups. Total posttreatment ABO-OGS scores were similar between the LightForce and conventional groups (29.0 vs 25.0; P = .061), although marginal ridge scores were higher in the LightForce group (P < .001). LightForce treatment was completed in a shorter time (16.0 vs 19.0 months; P < .001) with fewer scheduled visits (P = .012). However, the LightForce group experienced more bracket failures and more bracket related emergency visits (both P < .001). The presence of at least one bracket failure was higher in the LightForce group (80.6% vs 43.6%; P = .002).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Customized ceramic brackets (LightForce) achieved overall treatment quality comparable to conventional fixed appliances, but with improved treatment efficiency; however, they were associated with a higher rate of bracket-related complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148957758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"During which stage does maximum expansion occur in the passive self-ligating system?","authors":"Kaamini Elango, Vignesh Kailasam","doi":"10.2319/041026-330.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2319/041026-330.1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the stage-specific contribution of each archwire to transverse arch development in a passive self-ligating (PSL) system using multilandmark digital measurements.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-one adults with mild-to-moderate crowding were treated with a PSL system using a standardized archwire sequence: 0.013-inch CuNiTi (S1), 0.014 × 0.025-inch CuNiTi (S2), 0.018 × 0.025-inch CuNiTi (S3), and 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel (S4). Transverse measurements were made at cuspal, centroid, and palatal/lingual landmarks on digital models at baseline (S0) and after each archwire stage. Pain was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>0.014 × 0.025-inch CuNiTi (copper-nickel-titanium) archwire (ΔS2-S1) produced the greatest single-stage expansion in both arches. In the maxillary arch, the largest increment was at the intersecond premolar cuspal width (1.81 ± 0.87 mm; P < .001), followed by interfirst premolar (1.65 ± 0.91 mm; P < .001) and intercanine (1.33 ± 0.73 mm; P < .001). In the mandibular arch, the greatest expansion was at the intercanine cuspal width (1.10 ± 0.68 mm; P < .001) and intersecond premolar (1.03 ± 0.69 mm; P = .012). Intercuspal expansion consistently exceeded centroid and palatal/lingual expansion at canine and premolar widths. 0.013-inch CuNiTi archwire elicited the highest VAS score (6.14 ± 1.62) and stainless steel the lowest (1.95 ± 1.69).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 0.014 × 0.025-inch CuNiTi archwire was the primary contributor to transverse arch development in the PSL system, producing expansion predominantly through buccal crown tipping. Stainless steel archwires contributed the least expansion and pain, while the initial archwires caused the greatest pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148957783","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In situ evaluation of oral pathogen adhesion to orthodontic bracket materials: a split-mouth design with balanced allocation.","authors":"Jung-Sub An, Chang-Han Son, Sug-Joon Ahn","doi":"10.2319/042426-385.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2319/042426-385.1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the adhesion of oral pathogens to different orthodontic bracket materials using an in situ split-mouth design with balanced allocation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three bracket materials were evaluated: (1) stainless steel, (2) monocrystalline alumina ceramic, and (3) polycarbonate plastic. Customized maxillary trays were fabricated for 10 adult participants, and the materials were systematically assigned to the incisor, canine, premolar, and molar positions according to a predetermined balanced schedule. Participants wore trays containing bracket specimens for 12 hours overnight. Each participant completed at least three sessions, yielding 20 measurements per bracket material at each tooth position. After retrieval, biofilms were detached using sonication. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction was performed to assess total bacteria, Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sobrinus, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans. Repeated-measures two-way analysis of variance was used to evaluate the effects of bracket material and tooth position, and their interaction, on bacterial adhesion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Metal and plastic showed greater total bacterial adhesion than ceramic. S. mutans and S. sobrinus showed higher adhesion to ceramic than to metal and plastic, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed in the adhesion of P. gingivalis or A. actinomycetemcomitans among the materials. Tooth position had no significant effect on bacterial adhesion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bracket material significantly influences bacterial composition during early biofilm formation, whereas tooth position has minimal effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148957775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cone beam computed tomography integration in clear aligner therapy in the treatment planning of Class II division 2 malocclusion.","authors":"Matthew Boubaris, Simon Freezer, Maurice Meade","doi":"10.2319/022126-156.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2319/022126-156.1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the impact of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) integration on clear aligner therapy (CAT) digital treatment planning for maxillary incisors in patients with Class II division 2 malocclusion.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Digital treatment plans were developed for patients using Spark Approver software (Ormco, Orange, CA, USA), with and without CBCT integration. Planned lingual root torque (LRT) and lingual root movement (LRM) were recorded from the tooth movement table for maxillary incisors that satisfied selection criteria. Predicted lingual dehiscence (PLD) and clinical parameters including number of aligners, prescribed interproximal reduction (IPR), and number of intermediate and challenging tooth movements were recorded. Inferential statistics were used to compare treatment plans developed with and without CBCT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>56 maxillary incisors from 18 patients were assessed. With CBCT integration, planned LRT and LRM were significantly reduced by 51.5% and 42.4%, respectively. PLD per tooth significantly decreased from 3.7 mm (SD: 3.5) without CBCT, to 0.8 mm (SD: 1.3) with CBCT. Although no significant differences were observed in the number of aligners, prescribed IPR, or planned intermediate tooth movements, significantly fewer challenging movements were planned when CBCT was utilized.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CBCT integration into CAT digital treatment planning significantly alters planned root movements, minimizes PLD, and limits challenging tooth movements. Clinicians must carefully review digital treatment plans to identify and modify planned movements that may exceed anatomical limits to ensure alveolar boundaries are respected.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148763233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Oral health-related quality of life and masticatory function changes in Class II camouflage treatment: focus on maxillary premolar extraction and final posterior occlusion.","authors":"Hyunjae Lee, Jing Liu, Huiqing Han, Sung-Hwan Choi, Jung-Yul Cha","doi":"10.2319/122125-1048.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2319/122125-1048.1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare changes in oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and subjective food intake ability (key food intake ability [KFIA]) among different Class II camouflage strategies and to assess posterior occlusal contact types in Class II molar finishing.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Records from 62 patients with Class II malocclusion were categorized into nonextraction, maxillary premolar extraction (ME), and maxillomandibular premolar extraction (MME). The Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) and KFIA were administered before and after treatment. The American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index and Objective Grading System (OGS) were also evaluated. The primary outcomes were group × time interactions in OHIP-14 and KFIA; the secondary outcome was posterior disclusion in ME cases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline characteristics were similar, except for greater initial overjet and overbite in ME (P < .05). KFIA remained stable after treatment in all groups (P ≥ .05). OHIP-14 improved significantly in total score and psychological discomfort for all patients, with additional improvement in the handicap domain in the MME group; however, no significant group × time interactions were found. Baseline OHIP-14 was the only predictor of posttreatment OHRQoL (P < .001). OGS outcomes were comparable; however, digital analysis showed second-molar posterior disclusion in 10% of ME cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Class II camouflage treatment improved psychosocial aspects of OHRQoL regardless of extraction pattern; in contrast, subjective masticatory function remained unchanged. Baseline OHRQoL, rather than extraction type or case complexity, predicted final OHRQoL. Posterior occlusal assessment beyond OGS criteria may be useful in ME cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148703178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Do clear aligners distalize maxillary molars bodily or by distal tipping? A systematic review introducing a prespecified biomechanical descriptor.","authors":"Marco Serafin, Elisa Boccalari, Piero Antonio Zecca, Alberto Caprioglio","doi":"10.2319/022426-162.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2319/022426-162.1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To characterize the sagittal translation-tipping balance associated with reported maxillary molar distalization outcomes during clear aligner therapy (CAT) using a prespecified model-based descriptor.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261306794). PubMed, Scopus, and WOS were searched from inception to February 2026. Studies reporting maxillary molar distalization by CAT and providing crown displacement (Dcrown) and angulation change (θ) were included. A prespecified sagittal rigid-body approximation was applied. Tipping-related displacement was estimated as Dtip = Leff·tan(|θ|), where Leff was set as crown-to-center of resistance lever arm. Bodily displacement was defined as Dbod = Dcrown-Dtip. The primary outcome was the BF (Dbod/Dcrown). Descriptive analyses were performed separately for maxillary first (U6) and second (U7) molars.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies were included. Median Dcrown was 1.78 mm for U6 and 1.72 mm for U7. Median BF was 0.70 for U6 and 0.78 for U7. Using prespecified BF thresholds, translation-dominant movement was observed in 56.3% of U6 arms and 60.0% of U7 arms. Mixed behavior was observed in 37.5% of U6 arms and 26.7% of U7 arms, whereas tipping-dominant behavior occurred in 6.3% of U6 arms and 13.3% of U7 arms. Internal validation against root displacement showed that 66.7% of predictions were within 0.50 mm and 88.9% within 0.75 mm of observed apical movement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Maxillary molar distalization by CAT is more often translation-dominant than tipping-dominant; however, mixed movement patterns are common and tipping-dominant behavior can occur, particularly in U7.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148671893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Biomechanics of molar rotation with the transpalatal arch: applicability of Burstone's six geometries.","authors":"Giorgio Fiorelli","doi":"10.2319/010926-33.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2319/010926-33.1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To reevaluate transpalatal arch (TPA) biomechanics for molar rotation by transitioning from the traditional linear beam model to a statically indeterminate elastic portal frame analysis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A mathematical model based on Castigliano's second theorem simulated the TPA as a curved portal frame. Different modes of rotational activation were applied to standard and omega-loop designs across variable palatal heights (10 mm to 18 mm) using stainless steel and beta-titanium, incorporating a 2° mechanical clearance to simulate clinical insertion conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Palatal height was the primary determinant of TPA stiffness, acting as a lever arm that converts sagittal forces into torsion. In unilateral activation, average to high palatal vaults (palatal height ≥ 14 mm) generated spontaneous neutrality through the interaction between structural compliance and mechanical clearance, where the moment on the nonactivated side dissipates entirely. Regarding stiffness, contrary to clinical assumptions, the omega loop provided modest additional flexibility (less than 5% for unilateral activation, up to 15% for symmetric activation).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The TPA functions as a flexible elastic frame, not a rigid linear beam. Vertical legs significantly dampen the force system, rendering the omega loop mechanically redundant. Notably, compensatory bends, generally used for unilateral rotation activation, are often biomechanically unnecessary in high-vaulted patients, as the system naturally reduces the contralateral moment to zero within the mechanical tolerance of the attachment.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148655437","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Perception of smile attractiveness with different orthodontic aligner configurations.","authors":"Kathyane Carvalho Alves, Roberta Costa E Silva, Victor França Didier, Paula Vanessa Pedron Oltramari, Thaís Maria Freire Fernandes, Renata Rodrigues de Almeida-Pedrin, Márcio Rodrigues de Almeida, Ana Cláudia de Castro Ferreira Conti","doi":"10.2319/112825-991.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2319/112825-991.1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To examine the esthetic perception, by laypeople, of smile attractiveness using different configurations of orthodontic aligners and their accessories.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study included nine standardized photographs of an adult female model presenting an esthetically pleasing smile. The images represented different clinical conditions: natural smile (without aligner or attachments), smile with aligner only, with aligners and attachments, and with aligner combined with elastics, with and without attachments. A total of 193 laypeople, all aged over 18 years, evaluated the attractiveness of each image using a five-point Likert scale. Participants also completed a social media questionnaire assessing their familiarity with aligners, attachments, and their perception of aligner esthetics. Statistical analyses were performed using Chi-square, Fisher's Exact Test, Kruskal-Wallis, analysis of variance, and Tukey's post hoc test, with a significance level set at 5% (P < .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The highest esthetic ratings were observed for the natural smile (P = .66, mean = 4.46 ± 0.05), followed by the smile with aligner only (P = .56, mean = 4.27 ± 0.09) and the smile with attachments limited to the anterior teeth, without aligner (P = .36, mean = 4.25 ± 0.11). In contrast, images showing aligner with cuts, elastics and multiple attachments received the lowest attractiveness score (P = .09, mean = 3.38). Although 69.9% reported being familiar with aligners, only 13.9% understood what attachments were. Although 82.9% indicated they would choose aligner treatment, only 39.9% perceived them as completely invisible.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Orthodontic aligners are generally considered an esthetically acceptable treatment option. Simpler configurations, without accessories or with limited anterior attachments, showed attractiveness comparable to the natural smile, whereas multiple accessories negatively affected smile perception.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148623467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Orthodontic-related posts on Instagram: are they evidence based?","authors":"Matthew Jun Xian Hong, Andrew Abdulahad, Nikolaos Pandis, Martyn T Cobourne, Jadbinder Seehra","doi":"10.2319/022526-164.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2319/022526-164.1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the prevalence of orthodontic-related evidence-based posts on Instagram. A secondary aim was to assess the quality of studies cited within these orthodontic-related posts.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A cross-sectional analysis of publicly available Instagram posts was conducted between April 1 and November 30, 2025. Posts were identified using eight orthodontic hashtags (#orthodontics, #orthobiomechanics, #damonbraces, #clearaligners, #invisalign, #tads, #airwayorthodontics, #myofunctionalorthodontics). The first 200 eligible posts per hashtag were included. Screening and data extraction of post characteristics was conducted in duplicate and independently. For posts citing evidence, the referenced articles were retrieved, and the study quality assessed. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1600 posts analyzed, the content type was predominantly treatment descriptions (710/1600) and marketing (618/1600), with 187 categorized as educational. Engagement was modest (median likes: 21). Critically, only 25 posts cited any scientific evidence. Among these, narrative reviews (6/25) and epidemiological studies (5/25) were the most frequently cited study types. Of the 23 citable articles retrieved, five were rated as high quality, nine moderate quality, and nine low quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study confirms a lack of evidence-based orthodontic posts on Instagram. The small number of posts that cite scientific literature rely on moderate to low-quality studies. A coordinated effort among clinicians, professional societies, and online platforms is required to improve the credibility and quality of orthodontic information.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148623518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Training the algorithmically augmented orthodontist: competencies, curriculum design, and implementation challenges.","authors":"Sumit Yadav, Vaibhav Gandhi, Varun Hansraj, Shankar Rengasamy Venugopalan, Nikhillesh Vaiid, Veerasathpurush Allareddy","doi":"10.2319/Yadav_Special_Article.1","DOIUrl":"10.2319/Yadav_Special_Article.1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To establish a structured framework for incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) education into orthodontic residency training, outlining the competencies required for thoughtful and responsible use of AI in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The framework was developed through a series of iterative discussions among orthodontic educators with experience in digital orthodontics and AI research. A targeted review of the literature in dentistry, medical education, and health care ethics was performed to identify recurring themes related to AI literacy, competency-based training, and clinical integration. Insights were synthesized into guiding principles, competency domains, and curricular components suitable for orthodontic residency programs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The proposed framework describes (1) key guiding principles for integrating AI into orthodontic education, including patient-centered care, evidence-based evaluation, interdisciplinary collaboration, experiential learning, professional responsibility, and adaptability; (2) a phased curriculum spanning foundational AI concepts, clinical applications, patient management, ethics, and research appraisal; and (3) core competencies with measurable objectives focused on AI literacy, clinical workflow integration, ethical and regulatory awareness, and familiarity with AI-enabled orthodontic tools. Common implementation challenges, such as faculty experience gaps, limited resources, regulatory uncertainty, and assessment variability, are also discussed, along with practical strategies to address them.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Integrating AI into orthodontic education is increasingly necessary to prepare future clinicians for evolving practice environments. This framework provides a practical foundation for curriculum development and encourages broader discussion to establish shared standards for AI competencies in orthodontics.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":"495-503"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13492162/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148623507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}