Journals / Clinical Dentistry and Research / 2013 / Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 3

FRANKEL-II, TRAİNER VE ANTERİOR BITEPLANE APAREYLERİ İLE TEDAVİ EDİLMİŞ SINIF II HASTALARDA DİŞSEL ARK DEĞİŞİKLİKLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

COMPARISON OF DENTAL ARCH CHANGES OF CLASS II PATIENTS TREATED WITH FRANKEL-II, TRAINER AND ANTERIOR BITEPLANE APPLIANCES

Pages
14–24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, appliance selection should be done according to patient requirements and the results of this study can be used as guidance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background and aim: The aim of this study is to compare dental arch changes in Class II patients treated with Frankel-II, trainer and fixed anterior biteplane appliances.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Dental casts of 39 Class II patients treated with frankel-II, trainer or fixed anterior biteplane appliances and dental casts of 11 untreated Class II patients were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, appliance selection should be done according to patient requirements and the results of this study can be used as guidance.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background and aim: The aim of this study is to compare dental arch changes in Class II patients treated with Frankel-II, trainer and fixed anterior biteplane appliances. Materials and Methods: Dental casts of 39 Class II patients treated with frankel-II, trainer or fixed anterior biteplane appliances and dental casts of 11 untreated Class II patients were included. Dental casts were obtained before treatment (T1) and after appliance removal (T2). Statistical analysis included mean value, standard deviation and Tukey HSD for the groups. Results: Frankel group demonstrated a significant increase in the maxillary intermolar width comparing to the control, trainer and biteplane groups. Maxillary and mandibular arch length, maxillary arch depth increased significantly during the anterior biteplane treatment in comparison to the frankel and trainer appliances. Overjet decreased significantly in all of the treatment groups with a lesser effect with biteplane. Overbite decreased more with the anterior biteplane than the frankel-II and trainer appliances. Conclusion: In this study it is shown that the appliances evaluated have different effects on the maxillary and mandibular arches. Although all of the appliances are found to reduce overjet, Frankel-II and trainer appliances are more effective for overjet correction. On the other hand, it is also found that anterior biteplane is the most effective appliance for over bite reduction. Therefore, appliance selection should be done according to patient requirements and the results of this study can be used as guidance.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı; frankel-II, trainer ve sabit anterior biteplane apareyleri ile tedavi edilmiş Sınıf II hastalarda meydana gelen dişsel ark değişikliklerinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. Materyal ve Metod: Frankel-II, trainer veya sabit anterior biteplane apareyleri ile tedavi edilmiş 39 Sınıf II hastanın dişsel modelleri ve tedavi görmemiş 11 hastanın dişsel modelleri çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Tedaviden önce (T1) ve aparey çıkarıldıktan sonra (T2) dişsel modeller elde edilmiştir. İstatistiksel analizde gruplar için ortalama değer, standart sapma verilmiş ve Tukey HSD testi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Frankel grubunda maksiller intermolar genişlik kontrol, trainer ve biteplane gruplarına göre anlamlı bir artış gösterdi. Maksiller ve mandibular ark uzunluğu, maksiller ark derinliği anterior biteplane tedavisi sırasında frankel ve trainer apareyleriyle kıyaslandığında anlamlı olarak arttı. Overjet tüm tedavi gruplarında biteplane grubunda daha az etkiyle olacak şekilde anlamlı olarak azaldı. Overbite anterior biteplane ile frankel-II ve trainer apareylerinden daha fazla azaldı. Sonuç: Bu çalışmada değerlendirilen apareylerin maksiller ve mandibular arklar üzerinde farklı etkileri olduğu gösterildi. Apareylerin tümünün overjeti azaldığı bulunmasına rağmen, Frankel-II ve Trainer apareyleri overjet düzeltiminde daha fazla etkiliydi. Diğer taraftan, overbite'i azaltmada ise anterior biteplane apareyinin en etkili aparey olduğu bulundu. Bundan dolayı, aparey seçimi hasta ihtiyaçlarına göre yapılmalıdır ve bu çalışmada bulunan sonuçlar rehberlik edebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜVEN, B. A., ÖZ, A. Z., ŞAHİN, P. V., CİĞER, S. (2013). FRANKEL-II, TRAİNER VE ANTERİOR BITEPLANE APAREYLERİ İLE TEDAVİ EDİLMİŞ SINIF II HASTALARDA DİŞSEL ARK DEĞİŞİKLİKLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI. Clinical Dentistry and Research, Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 3, 14–24. https://ajindex.com/articles/151199

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. McNamara JA Jr, Peterson JE Jr, Alexander RG. Three-dimensional diagnosis and management of Class II malocclusion in the mixed dentition. Semin Orthod 1996; 2: 114-137
  2. Ast DB, Carlos JP, Cons NC. The prevalence and characteristics of malocclusion among senior high school students in upstate New York. Am J Orthod 1965; 51: 437-445
  3. Ingervall B. Relation between height of the articular tubercle of the temporomandibular joint and facial morphology. Angle Orthod 1974; 44: 15-24
  4. McNamara JA Jr. Components of class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod 1981; 51: 177-202
  5. Graber TM. Functional appliances. In: P. Rudolph, editor. Orthodontics: Current principles and techniques. St.Louis, Missouri: Mosby; 2005. p. 493-542
  6. Proffit WR, Fields HW. Treatment of skeletal problems in preadolescent children. In: P. Rudolph, editor. Contemporary Orthodontic. St.Louis, Missouri: Mosby; 2000. p. 478-523
  7. Staley RN, Stuntz WR, Peterson LC. A comparison of arch widths in adults with normal occlusion and adults with class II, Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod 1985; 88: 163-169
  8. Bishara SE, Bayati P, Jakobsen JR. Longitudinal comparisons of dental arch changes in normal and untreated Class II, Division 1 subjects and their clinical implications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 110: 483-489
  9. Alarashi M, Franchi L, Marinelli A, Defraia E. Morphometric analysis of the transverse dentoskeletal features of class II malocclusion in the mixed dentition. Angle Orthod 2003; 73: 21-25
  10. McNamara JA Jr. Early intervention in the transverse dimension: is it worth the effort? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 121: 572-574
  11. Lux CJ, Conradt C, Burden D, Komposch G. Dental arch widths and mandibular-maxillary base widths in Class II malocclusions between early mixed and permanent dentitions. Angle Orthod 2003; 73: 674-685
  12. Sadowsky C, Schneider BJ, BeGole EA, Tahir E. Long-term stability after orthodontic treatment: nonextraction with prolonged retention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106: 243-249
  13. Elms TN, Buschang PH, Alexander RG. Long-term stability of Class II, Division 1, nonextraction cervical face-bow therapy: I. Model analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 109: 271-276
  14. Hime DL, Owen AH 3rd. The stability of the arch-expansion effects of Fränkel appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 98: 437-445
  15. Hamilton SD, Sinclair PM, Hamilton RH. A cephalometric, tomographic, and d