©2017 JCO, Inc. May not be distributed without permission. www.jco-online.

com

MASTER CLINICIAN
Mauro Cozzani, DMD, MScD
(Editor’s Note: Associate Editor Peter Sinclair conceived this department devoted
to recognizing the Master Clinicians who have made the orthodontic specialty
what it is today. He will delve into the career story and treatment principles of one
of these seminal figures. We welcome your nominees for future Master Clinicians.)

It gives me substantial pleasure to introduce
my friend and colleague, Dr. Mauro Cozzani, as our
current Master Clinician. A number of years ago,
shortly after I was named Editor of JCO, I was in-
vited to lecture in the Department of Orthodontics
at the University of Ferrara, Italy. I eventually made
several trips to Italy and, during the course of my
visits, gained a deep appreciation for the country,
its customs, and, especially, the people (not to men-
Dr. Cozzani Dr. Sinclair
Dr. Cozzani is a Full Professor of Orthodontics and Director,
Master’s Program in Clinical Dentistry Orthodontics, LUdeS
Foundation Higher Education Institution, Kalkara, Malta, and in the
private practice of orthodontics in La Spezia, Italy. Dr. Sinclair is an
Associate Editor of the Journal of Clinical Orthodontics and a
Clinical Professor, Advanced Orthodontic Program, Division of
Endodontics, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and Orthodontics,
School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles;
e-mail: sinclair@usc.edu.
tion the food and wine!). I met many highly capable
orthodontists, but one who stands out as singularly
impressive is Dr. Cozzani. In the years since I first
met him, he has been a frequent contributor to the
pages of JCO and other international orthodontic
publications, having published more than 80 papers.
Dr. Cozzani earned his degree in dentistry at
the University of Milan and gained his specializa-
tion in orthodontics at Boston University. He re-
ceived the Diplôme Université d’Orthodontie from
the University of Burgundy in Dijon, France; at-
tended the Corso di Perfezionamento in Ortodonzia
Intercettiva at the University of Parma; and earned
his European specialization in orthodontics at the
University of Ferrara. A member of several inter-
national orthodontic associations, he is a past Pres-
ident of the Italian Association of Orthodontic Spe-
cialists and of the Italian Board of Orthodontics, a
former Chairman of the Examiners and President
of the European Board of Orthodontists, and a
Diplomate of the American Board of Orthodontics.
Dr. Cozzani was Founder and President of
the Italian Academy of Orthodontics, and he
served for three years as co-editor of Progress in
Orthodontics. He has given numerous lectures all
over the world, including at AAO annual sessions.
He has written one book, along with five chapters
in other orthodontic texts. For more than nine
years, he has conducted research activity at the
Centro Studi e Ricerche di Ortodonzia in La Spe-
zia, Italy, focusing on molecular biology and bone
regeneration. His clinical interests include early

VOLUME LI NUMBER 1 © 2017 JCO, Inc. 11

MASTER CLINICIAN
treatment, non-compliance devices, skeletal an-
chorage, self-ligating brackets, and clear aligners.
Dr. Cozzani is particularly proud, and right-
fully so, that he is the Founding Director of a new
three-year master’s degree program in orthodon-
tics, taught in English, at the LUdeS Foundation
Higher Education Institution in Malta. I am hon-
ored to know Dr. Cozzani and to count him among
my friends. RGK
DR. SINCLAIR Who were your mentors?
DR. COZZANI My father Giuseppe was an or-
thodontist, one of the first Italians who used fixed
appliances; he took the Tweed course in 1970. He
founded a private school that taught fixed ortho-
dontics to a large number of colleagues in the
1970s, ’80s, and ’90s (the first orthodontic pro-
gram in Italy was established in 1974). It is very
probable that he was the first Italian to be pub-
lished in AJO.1 He founded the Angle Society of
Europe with some colleagues and was the Presi-
dent and a representative of the Italian Society of
Orthodontics, and, consequently, the cofounder of
the World Federation of Orthodontists in San Fran-
cisco in 1995.
In the late ’60s, he met Anthony A. Gianelly,
who became one of his best friends (Fig. 1). They
wrote a book that was a best seller in Italy.2 When
I graduated from dental school, my father sug-
Fig. 1 Drs. Anthony A. Gianelly and Giuseppe
Cozzani.
12
gested that I study orthodontics in Dr. Gianelly’s
department.
Dr. Gianelly was Chairman of the Ortho-
dontic Department at Boston University, where I
got my postgraduate education. It is my personal
opinion that to be a good educator and an excellent
chairman, one should be an outstanding clinician
(Dr. Gianelly was a DMD, an MD, and an Angle
East Society active member), a good researcher (he
had a PhD in biochemistry), and a fantastic com-
municator. Moreover, one should love orthodontics.
Unfortunately, all these qualities are not enough.
In fact, young residents are demanding and hyper-
critical, so one should also have a strong leadership
personality and be an exceptional human being.
Dr. Gianelly had all these prerequisites.3
I feel I had the best teacher I could have had,
and I, of course, always considered him an ex-
ample, and not just in the professional field. In fact,
Dr. Gianelly had the rare ability to transmit values
through his example, his personality, and his cha-
risma. He was able to positively affect the lives of
everyone who knew him. He was a giant in ortho-
dontics, a teacher for many, and a second father for
me. Until his death, we were in constant contact.
I have to admit that any time I had to make an
important decision in my life, I talked to Dr. G.
Fig. 2 A. Non-occluding surfaces between cen-
tral incisors. B. Occluding surfaces between
molars, with cusps and fossae in contact more
than 1,000 times per day.
JCO/JANUARY 2017
 Mauro Cozzani, DMD, MScD

DR. SINCLAIR What is your orthodontic phi- Our final wire is .018" × .022" stainless steel. Ef-
losophy, and how does it guide you? ficient 3D control of a tooth is easier when com-
pletely filling the slot, while an undersize wire for
DR. COZZANI Teeth are different due to mor- premolars and molars allows those teeth to settle,
phology, and their function is different, so why following function.
should we use the same brackets for all teeth? We
need to control different teeth in different ways.
The three-dimensional control of incisors should DR. SINCLAIR What diagnostic principles do
be absolute. Incisors don’t have an occluding sur- you follow, and why?
face, making it crucial to control rotation, torque, DR. COZZANI When we visit a patient for the
tip, and in-out to obtain a correct overjet and first time, we look at facial esthetics. Our first
overbite and, as a consequence, functional incisor question is about facial harmony, especially a bal-
guidance. anced profile. We know we can change the lower
Premolars and molars do have occluding third of the face only and, very often, not in a very
surfaces, with cusps and fossae that come into relevant way without surgery. Incisor position can
contact more than 1,000 times per day when swal- make the difference. Ideally, the upper lip should
lowing (Fig. 2). Moreover, because dental arches stay in front of the esthetic line, as defined by
become shorter and wider, and posterior torque Gianelly: 2-3mm in females and 4-5mm in males.5
changes with age,4 premolar and molar torque is If the patient shows a protrusive upper lip, we
determined by function and growth. In this area, can hypothesize that the option of extraction can’t
it is critical to ensure that contact points are at the be excluded. On the contrary, in a case of a retru-
same level, that roots are within the cortical bone, sive upper lip, strict control of the upper-incisor
and that cusps and fossae are aligned to avoid pre- position is important to avoid worsening the profile.
maturities. After this evaluation, we analyze the lower
Finally, it is crucial to maintain the archform. arch and, in particular, crowding, lower-incisor
For that reason, we prefer to use .018" slots on in- position, midline, and curve of Spee (Table 1).
cisors and .022" slots on premolars and molars. It is well known that lower-arch expansion is
at risk of relapse. Archform and intercanine width
must not be changed.6,7 In a case of moderate or
TABLE 1 severe crowding, we consider extraction the only
TREATMENT PLAN ACCORDING reliable option, even if the profile analysis resulted
TO GIANELLY BIDIMENSIONAL in a nonextraction treatment plan. Changes in the
TECHNIQUE lower arch influence upper-lip position. To obtain
a correct overjet, the more the lower incisors are
Right Left retracted, the more the upper front teeth and lip
need to be retracted. We have to estimate the real
1. Crowding risk of worsening the profile and the consequent
2. Curve of Spee available treatment options to keep this risk lower,
3. Midline which include extractions in the buccal and poste-
rior areas or strict torque control of the front teeth.
4. Profile
When we assess if surgery could be an option,
5. Space required we discuss it with the patient and parents, who make
6. Extraction/expansion an educated decision whether or not to accept a
7. Lower-molar movement compromised result by weighing the pros and cons.
In conclusion, anteroposteriorly, we use the
8. Molar relationship
nasolabial angle as a reference as described by Dr.
9. Upper-molar movement Gianelly, while transversely, our limit is the man-

VOLUME LI NUMBER 1 13
MASTER CLINICIAN
A B
Fig. 3 Margolis’s mandibular plane-occiput (M-OCC) angle. A. In normodivergent patient, M-OCC meets
occipital bone. B. In hyperdivergent patient, M-OCC lies within cranium. C. In hypodivergent patient, M-
OCC lies outside cranial structures.
dibular intercanine distance, which we don’t like
to expand. Our vertical reference is the mandibular
plane-occiput angle as described by Margolis (Fig.
3). When we consider crowding, the mandibular
arch is our guide and only reference.
DR. SINCLAIR What are the most important
mechanical principles to employ in leveling, align-
ing, closing, finishing, and retention?
DR. COZZANI The milestone of a good treat-
ment result is a correct diagnosis. After having
defined clinical problems, we establish if and how
we can correct the malocclusion. The identification
of critical clinical factors permits us to forecast the
probability to reach the treatment plan objectives.
A good technique is a fundamental tool to reach
our goals, but only when the objectives and risks
are well known.
The Bidimensional technique is based pri-
marily on a specific slot prescription in frontal and
posterior areas, and then on archwire sequence.
Both are justified by biomechanical principles.8 As
in many techniques, the first step of alignment
requires undersize wires to maintain wire elastic-
ity and to allow the wire to be engaged inside the
slot. An increase in wire size and, specifically, the
use of rectangular wires (heat-activated .016" ×
.025" or .018" × .025" nickel titanium) allow
torque, tip, and rotation to be corrected.
The most relevant aspect of our technique is
the differentiation of slot sizes in the anterior and
posterior areas (Fig. 4). On the front teeth, a slot
size of .018" × .025" provides adequate torque
14
C
control when the working wire (.018" × .022" high-
ly tempered stainless steel) is inserted. In fact, the
play between the wire and slot is approximately
5°.9 At the same time, the larger slots of brackets
bonded to the premolars and molars (.022" × .028")
create a predominance of occlusal forces during
the interaction between slot and wire. Therefore,
the posterior teeth can settle in a stable position
during the period in which the final wire works.
If torque control is required in the premolar or
molar area—for example, during preparation of an
asymmetrical patient for surgery to decompensate
premolar and molar torque—we make a 90° bend
in an .018" × .022" wire. We again fill the slot
completely, using an .022" × .018" wire in an .022"
× .028" slot (Fig. 5). The combination of the verti-
cal slot (V-slot) with the horizontal slot allows the
use of uprighting springs for each tooth when ad-
ditional anchorage control is required.
Dr. G’s technique is versatile. Slot dimension,
combined with uprighting springs inserted in the
V-slots, allows us to “play” with anchorage. We
can choose which tooth to move and which one to
keep stable. We can decide to close a space on the
left side in the upper or lower arch and to anchor
the other side. Asymmetrical treatment is not a
concern.10 We are aware that we hold in our hands
a powerful means that can be added to such com-
monly used auxiliaries as elastics, lip bumpers,
temporary anchorage devices (TADs), or headgear.
Lastly, for good finishing, we believe we
have to bond brackets properly. We use an indirect
bonding technique.11,12 A correct position and a
reduced composite layer are a good start for align-
JCO/JANUARY 2017
 Mauro Cozzani, DMD, MScD

Fig. 4 Gianelly’s Bidimensional technique utilizes .018" × .025" slots on incisor brackets and .022" × .028"
slots on canine, premolar, and molar brackets. When .018" × .022" wire is inserted, incisor slots are filled
while all other slots maintain some degree of freedom.

Fig. 5 .018" × .022" wire bent at 90° for complete torque control of canines, premolars, and molars (selec-
tively or as a group). When wire is changed to .022" × .018", slots are completely filled.

ing teeth. Sometimes, even with indirect methods,
brackets can be positioned incorrectly, so they have
to be debonded and rebonded properly after level-
ing, alignment, rotation, and torque control. Near
the end of treatment, finishing with rebonding is,
in our opinion, less efficient than correcting tooth
position with a small wire bend. When a bracket
is debonded, all reference points are lost. It should
also be considered that once rebonded, the wire
utilized is often undersize and, therefore, the pre-
scriptions are not completely read. A small com-
pensating bend can be made by visualizing the
correction needed, and the result can be controlled
at the next appointment. Eventually, the bend is
modified. We are orthodontists, and we have been
trained to bend and torque wires. I don’t under-
stand why we prefer not to do so when, overall, it
seems to be the most efficient procedure.
The last step in our treatment sequence is
retention to maintain results over time. We prefer
removable over fixed retainers for two main rea-
sons. First, cleaning procedures are easy. Second,
we prefer not to be responsible for something we
don’t have under our constant control.

VOLUME LI NUMBER 1 15
MASTER CLINICIAN
DR. SINCLAIR What is your best clinical tip?
DR. COZZANI I am convinced that having a V-
slot in the bracket can improve the efficiency of
any technique; in fact, it can be used to insert dif-
ferent auxiliaries. Uprighting springs tip the crown
of a tooth until the opposite internal angles of the
bracket slot contact the archwire, creating a bind-
ing effect that increases resistance to sliding, thus
increasing the tooth anchorage in a reversible man-
ner (Fig. 6).
Longer power arms can be inserted into V-
slots to allow the application of orthodontic forces
closer to the center of resistance of the teeth, main-
ly when TADs are utilized as direct anchorage to
close extraction spaces (Fig. 7).
By changing the position of power pins, T-
pins, and elastic hooks, the clinician can prescribe
intermaxillary elastics to be worn from the upper
lateral incisors (long Class II) or from the lower
second premolars (short Class II). Inserting these
auxiliaries only where and when needed can re-
duce the possibility that the patient would misun-
derstand instructions for elastic insertion. Power
pins, T-pins, and elastic hooks can easily substitute
for labor-intensive soldered or crimpable hooks in
patients undergoing orthognathic surgery.
The V-slot can be utilized when an ectopic
Fig. 6 Arm of uprighting spring before (dotted
yellow line) and after (yellow arrow) activation.
Force couple (orange arrows) increases resis-
tance to sliding of canine bracket, anchoring ca-
nine to wire.
16
or blocked-out tooth cannot be tied in convention-
ally, or when a tooth is misaligned after a bracket
has been lost between appointments. A stainless
steel ligature wire can be passed through the V-slot
and around the archwire. As the ligature wire is
reactivated at each appointment, the tooth will be
gradually drawn back into the arch.13 V-slots can
also be used to tie a lighter overlay wire with a
stainless steel ligature—for example, when upper
second molars erupt buccally and a large-dimen-
sion rectangular wire is already in place, or to add
to a base small-diameter wire or a second expand-
ed or reverse-curve wire.14
In the last decade, we have switched to self-
ligating brackets to reduce chairtime. We utilize
active .018" × .025" brackets on the incisors and
passive .022" × .028" brackets on the premolars and
molars. Of course, all the brackets have V-slots.
We noticed some advantages, including that incisor
Fig. 7 Power arm inserted in upper right canine
bracket to bring point of force application closer
to tooth’s center of resistance.
Fig. 8 Ligature ties impinging on mucosa.
JCO/JANUARY 2017

torque and rotation control are more accurate,9 and
emergencies due to ligature ties impinging on the
mucosa are reduced (Fig. 8). To finalize leveling
and alignment, we use an .016" × .025" nickel tita-
nium wire that completely fills the slot horizon-
tally. Two mechanisms work together to correct
rotations: the wire, which tends to return to its
original form, and the active clip, which pushes the
wire against the slot’s vertical wall (Fig. 9).15
DR. SINCLAIR How do you handle specific
clinical problems?
DR. COZZANI One of the major problems in
orthodontics is controlling upper-incisor torque.
For this reason, central- and lateral-incisor torque
prescriptions keep increasing—for example, 7°
with Andrews for central incisors vs. 17° with
MBT.* Some clinicians use different prescriptions
for different cases, increasing storage, expense,
time, and effort to maintain control. It is well dem-
onstrated that is not easy to efficiently control
torque when the final wire is .019" × .025" and the
bracket slot is .022" × .028".16 Additionally, ortho-
dontists are used to evaluating “engagement an-
gles”, when they should consider “clinically effec-
tive torque”, which is even more difficult to
produce with undersize wires.9
Incisor retraction in the Bidimensional tech-
nique is performed with an .018" × .022" heavily
tempered stainless steel wire inserted in an .018"
× .025" slot, theoretically filling the slot vertically.
Incisor brackets have Roth prescriptions. An ac-
*Trademark of 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA; www.3Munitek.com.
Fig. 9 With self-ligating brackets, two mechanisms work together to correct rotations: archwire, which
tends to return to its original form, and active clip, which pushes wire against slot wall.
VOLUME LI NUMBER 1
Mauro Cozzani, DMD, MScD
centuated curve of Spee is placed in the wire, and
a toe-in is placed in the molar area to counteract
the bowing and rotational effect of the coil used to
retract the incisor (Fig. 10A). A torque of 10-15°
is added in the incisor area (Fig. 10B). At every
appointment, overjet and incisor torque are
checked. If incisor palatal inclination (torque loss)
is detected, retraction forces are discontinued and
more torque is added to the archwire until correct
inclination of the incisor is achieved. Then retrac-
tion mechanics are re-established (Figs. 11,12).
In the mandibular arch, we utilize .018" ×
.025" standard (no prescription) incisor brackets
with V-slots. Working wires are always .018" ×
.022" heavily tempered stainless steel to fill the
incisor bracket slots. When Class II elastics are
worn, we add lingual crown torque to partially
counteract incisor proclination (Fig. 13A). On the
other hand, when mechanics to protract premolars
and molars are utilized, we add buccal crown torque
to avoid lingual incisor inclination (Fig. 13B).10
In conclusion, we have two ways of control-
ling teeth in orthodontics: bracket prescriptions
and wirebending. Prescriptions are helpful, but in
my opinion, renouncing wirebending reduces
treatment efficiency. In fact, prescriptions are un-
changeable, while wirebending is versatile and
allows the orthodontist to evaluate treatment prog-
ress and react accordingly.
DR. SINCLAIR What is your greatest clinical
challenge?
DR. COZZANI I believe treating Class II non-
compliance is the greatest clinical challenge. After
17
MASTER CLINICIAN

A B
Fig. 10 Incisor retraction in Bidimensional technique (white arrow = force applied; orange arrows = couple
of force; gray arrow = moment of force; yellow line = power arm; red dot = tooth’s center of resistance).
A. Couple of force created by accentuated curve of Spee on distal third of wire, counteracting moment.
B. Couple of force created by adding buccal crown torque to wire.

Fig. 11 Case 1. 19-year-old female Class II, division 1 patient with miss-
ing lower second premolars before treatment.

18 JCO/JANUARY 2017

a study of palatal thickness at different points in
cone-beam computed tomography,17 we developed
a distalizer anchored to the palate with mini-
screws.18,19 It is really easy to insert and doesn’t
require extra radiography or lab work compared
to a traditional appliance. We demonstrated that it
was able to distalize molars, premolars, and ca-
nines without any compliance.20,21 To retract the
incisors, however, we had to insert two miniscrews
or use Class II elastics.
Our aim is to reduce patient compliance al-
most to only brushing teeth and showing up for
appointments. We studied the clinical behavior of
Fig. 12 Case 1. After 24 months of treatment.
VOLUME LI NUMBER 1
Mauro Cozzani, DMD, MScD
miniscrews in vivo and through finite-element
analysis.22-24 Then we used miniscrews in combi-
nation with the Herbst** appliance. With this com-
bination, we were able to control lower-incisor
proclination and enhance pogonion advancement.25
We are now connecting the lower dentition—in
particular, the canines—to the miniscrews with
elastic ligatures, which has allowed us to further
reduce and even avoid lower-incisor protrusion.26
Our group is convinced that the control of
the maxillary anteroposterior dental position and
**Registered trademark of Dentaurum, Inc., Newtown, PA; www.
dentaurum.com.
19
MASTER CLINICIAN

A B
Fig. 13 A. Lingual crown torque utilized with Class II elastics. B. Buccal crown torque utilized with molar
protraction mechanics.

A B
Fig. 14 Case 2. A. Rapid palatal expander (RPE) anchored to deciduous teeth in 7-year-old male mixed-
dentition patient with unilateral crossbite on right. B. After one month of activation.

overjet is crucial, and we are currently running
clinical experiments to test these ideas.
DR. SINCLAIR Is there any other topic you
would like to discuss?
DR. COZZANI The topic we have studied most
is rapid maxillary expansion (RME). We noticed
that our youngsters, quite often, are not used to
breathing properly. They spend a lot of time on the
couch playing video games or watching smart-
phones, and their physical activity seems to be
limited to the minimum. This could be why we
noticed an increasing number of patients requiring
maxillary expansion.
We think timing and anchorage are crucial
to obtain stable results. In the early ’90s, we pub-
lished a paper that suggested using deciduous teeth
in the mixed dentition as anchorage.27 The tradi-
tional rapid maxillary expander (Hyrax** or Haas)
anchors to the first permanent molars and premo-
lars. Using the deciduous dentition as anchorage
**Registered trademark of Dentaurum, Inc., Newtown, PA; www.
dentaurum.com.

20 JCO/JANUARY 2017

Fig. 15 Case 3. 7-year-old female Class I patient in mixed dentition with unilateral crossbite on left before
treatment.
A B
B
Fig. 16 Case 3. A. Customized RPE anchored to deciduous teeth. B. After two months of activation.
instead of the permanent dentition aims to reduce
the risk of negative side effects on permanent teeth
from the expansion force and plaque accumulation
around bands. The appliance we studied is a mod-
ified Haas rapid maxillary expander, but it should
be noted that we did not extend arms or acrylic to
the permanent molars (Fig. 14).
In different studies, we were able to confirm
that RME to correct a lateral crossbite should be
performed during skeletal growth, and that it is
more efficient after eruption of the first permanent
molars and before the end of adolescence. We also
found that it is effective in increasing transverse
width in the intermolar and intercanine areas—
changes that are maintained until the full permanent
dentition. Early expansion, performed before the
VOLUME LI NUMBER 1
Mauro Cozzani, DMD, MScD
upper lateral incisors have fully erupted, allows for
a rapid increase in arch length in the anterior region
and, consequently, in the space available, with a
concomitant reduction in crowding. Finally, anchor-
age to deciduous teeth produces a more pronounced
and stable expansion in the anterior area.28-32
From a clinical point of view, placing bands
on deciduous molars could be challenging; their
retention is limited because their vertical slopes
are not curved. We have developed a customized
appliance that addresses these challenges and re-
duces chairtime to only taking an impression
(Figs. 15-17).33,34
DR. SINCLAIR Thank you for sharing your
clinical experience with our readers.
21
MASTER CLINICIAN
Fig. 17 Case 3. Patient three years after treatment, in permanent dentition.
REFERENCES
1. Cozzani, G.: Extraoral traction and Class III treatment, Am. J.
Orthod. 80:638-650, 1981.
2. Cozzani, G. and Gianelly, A.A.: Ortodonzia: Concetti
Pratici, Cides Odonto, Turin, Italy, 1985.
3. Dietz, V. and Bednar, J.: Anthony Gianelly: Lecturer, re-
searcher, author, and teacher, Am. J. Orthod. 148:717-719,
2015.
4. Marshall, S.; Dawson, D.; Southard, K.A.; Lee, A.N.; Casko,
J.S.; and Southard, T.E.: Transverse molar movements during
growth, Am. J. Orthod. 124:615-624, 2003.
5. Gianelly, A. and Dietz, V.S.: Maxillary arch considerations in
diagnosis and treatment planning, J. Clin. Orthod. 16:168-172,
1982.
6. Felton, J.M.; Sinclair, P.M.; Jones, D.L.; and Alexander, R.G.:
A computerized analysis of the shape and stability of arch
form, Am. J. Orthod. 92:478-483, 1987.
7. De la Cruz, A.R.; Sampson, P.; Little, R.; Artun, J.; and
Shapiro, P.A.: Long-term changes in arch form after ortho-
dontic treatment and retention, Am. J. Orthod. 107:518-530,
1995.
8. Gianelly, A.A.: Bidimensional Technique: Theory and Prac-
tice, GAC International, Central Islip, NY, 2000.
9. Archambauld, A.; Lacoursiere, R.; Badawi, H.; Major, P.W.;
Carey, J.; and Flores-Mir, C.: Torque expression in stainless
steel orthodontic brackets, Angle Orthod. 80:201-210, 2010.
10. Cozzani, M.; Mazzotta, L.; Rinchuse, D.J.; and Cozzani, P.:
Asymmetrical mandibular molar protraction with convention-
al mechanics, J. Clin. Orthod. 49:304-311, 2015.
11. Cozzani, M.; Menini, A.; and Bertelli, A.: Etching masks for
precise indirect bonding, J. Clin. Orthod. 44:326-330, 2010.
12. Menini, A.; Cozzani, M.; Sfondrini, M.F.; Scribante, A.;
Cozzani, P.; and Gandini, P.: A 15-month evaluation of bond
failures of orthodontic brackets bonded with direct versus in-
direct bonding technique: A clinical trial, Prog. Orthod.
15:70, 2014.
13. Cozzani, M.; Mazzotta, L.; Bowman, S.J.; and Rinchuse, D.:
Use of vertical slot in orthodontic brackets, J. Clin. Orthod.
49:574-581, 2015.
14. Menini, A.; Cozzani, P.; and Cozzani, M.: Eruption control of
maxillary second molars with segmental overlay wire, J. Clin.
Orthod. 46:45-47, 2012.
15. Cozzani, M. and Mazzotta, L.: Bidi-self: La técnica bidimen-
sional con bracket de autoligado, Rev. Esp. Orthod. 42:240-
246, 2012.
16. Sifakakis, I.; Pandis, N.; Makou, M.; Eliades, T.; Katsaros,
C.; and Bourauel, C.: Torque expression of 0.018 and 0.022
22
inch conventional brackets, Eur. J. Orthod. 35:610-614, 2013.
17. Gracco, A.; Lombardo, L.; Cozzani, M.; and Siciliani, G.:
Quantitative cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of
palatal bone thickness for orthodontic miniscrew placement,
Am. J. Orthod. 134:361-369, 2008.
18. Velo, S.; Rotunno, E.; and Cozzani, M.: The implant Distal
Jet, J. Clin. Orthod. 41:88-93, 2007.
19. Cozzani, M.; Zallio, F.; Lombardo, L.; and Gracco, A.:
Efficiency of the “distal screw” in maxillary molar distaliza-
tion, World J. Orthod. 11:341-345, 2010.
20. Cozzani, M.; Pasini, M.; Zallio, F.; Ritucci, R.; Mutinelli, S.;
Mazzotta, L.; Giuca, M.R.; and Piras, V.: Comparison of
maxillary molar distalization with an implant-supported
Distal Jet and a traditional tooth-supported Distal Jet appli-
ance, Int. J. Dent., published online, June 11, 2014.
21. Cozzani, M.; Fontana, M.; Maino, G.; Maino, G.; Palpacelli,
L.; and Caprioglio, A.: Comparison between direct vs indirect
anchorage in two miniscrew-supported distalizing devices,
Angle Orthod. 86:399-406, 2016.
22. Gracco, A.; Cirignaco, A.; Cozzani, M.; Boccaccio, A.;
Pappaletterre, C.; and Vitale, G.: Numerical/experimental
analysis of the stress field around miniscrews for the ortho-
dontic anchorage, Eur. J. Orthod. 31:12-20, 2009.
23. Manni, A.; Cozzani, M.; Tamborrino, F.; De Rinaldis, S.; and
Menini, A.: Factors influencing the stability of miniscrews. A
clinical study on 300 miniscrews, Eur. J. Orthod. 33:388-395,
2011.
24. Perillo, L.; Jamilian, A.; Shafieyoon, A.; Karimi, H.; and
Cozzani, M.: Finite element analysis of miniscrew placement
in mandibular alveolar bone with varied angulations, Eur. J.
Orthod. 37:56-59, 2015.
25. Manni, A.; Pasini, M.; Mazzotta, L.; Mutinelli, S.; Nuzzo, C.;
Grassi, F.R.; and Cozzani, M.: Comparison between an acryl-
ic splint Herbst and an acrylic splint miniscrew-Herbst for
mandibular incisors proclination control, Int. J. Dent., pub-
lished online, May 19, 2014.
26. Manni, A.; Mutinelli, S.; Pasini, M.; Mazzotta, L.; and
Cozzani, M.: Herbst appliance anchored to miniscrews with 2
types of ligation: Effectiveness in skeletal Class II treatment,
Am. J. Orthod. 149:871-880, 2016.
27. Montera, V.; Zappulla, F.; Lanteri, C.; and Cozzani, M.:
Bandaggio degli “E”, Mondo Ortod. 3:343-346, 1991.
28. Cozzani, M.; Rosa, M.; Cozzani, P.; and Siciliani, G.:
Deciduous dentition-anchored rapid maxillary expansion in
crossbite and non-crossbite mixed dentition patients: Reaction
of the permanent first molar, Prog. Orthod. 4:15-22, 2003.
JCO/JANUARY 2017

29. Cozzani, M.; Guiducci, A.; Mirenghi, S.; Mutinelli, S.; and
Siciliani, G.: Arch width changes with a rapid maxillary ex-
pansion appliance anchored to the primary teeth, Angle
Orthod. 77:296-302, 2007.
30. Mutinelli, S.; Cozzani, M.; Manfredi, M.; Bee, M.; and
Siciliani, G.: Dental arch changes following rapid maxillary
expansion, Eur. J. Orthod. 30:469-476, 2008.
31. Mutinelli, S.; Manfredi, M.; Guiducci, A.; Denotti, G.; and
Cozzani, M.: Anchorage onto deciduous teeth: Effectiveness
of early rapid maxillary expansion in increasing dental arch
dimension and improving anterior crowding, Prog. Orthod.
VOLUME LI NUMBER 1
Mauro Cozzani, DMD, MScD
16:22, 2015.
32. Mutinelli, S. and Cozzani, M.: Rapid maxillary expansion in
early-mixed dentition: Effectiveness of increasing arch di-
mension with anchorage on deciduous teeth, Eur. J. Paediat.
Dent. 16:115-122, 2015.
33. Cozzani, M.; Fontana, M.; and Cozzani, P.: A cast-metal
Haas-type expander for the deciduous dentition, J. Clin.
Orthod. 44:738-740, 2010.
34. Cozzani, M.; Fontana, M.; Cozzani, P.; and Bertelli, A.: Cast
Haas-type RME appliance: A case report, Orthod. (Chic.)
12:252-259, 2011.
23