Journals / Cumhuriyet Dental Journal / 2021 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1

A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF EXTRACTION AND NONEXTRACTION ORTHODONTIC TREATMENTS ON CEPHALOMETRIC PARAMETERS AND ARCH WIDTHS

Çekimli ve Çekimsiz Ortodontik Tedavilerin Sefalometrik Yapılar ve Ark Genişlikleri Üzerine Etkilerinin Karşılaştırılması

Pages
47–56
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

The upper and lower incisors proclined significantly in Group I (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: To compare the effects of two different treatment approaches on cephalometric measurements and arch widths.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: The retrospective study evaluated pre- and post-treatment cephalometric radiograms and dental models of 45 patients with Class I malocclusions and moderate-severe dental tooth size arch length discrepancies that underwent extraction or nonextraction treatment between 2015 and 2020.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The upper and lower incisors proclined significantly in Group I (p
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the effects of two different treatment approaches on cephalometric measurements and arch widths. Materials and Methods: The retrospective study evaluated pre- and post-treatment cephalometric radiograms and dental models of 45 patients with Class I malocclusions and moderate-severe dental tooth size arch length discrepancies that underwent extraction or nonextraction treatment between 2015 and 2020. Group I (n=22 [9 female, 13 male]; mean age, 18.0 ± 1.68 years) was treated with the Damon Q bracket system and Group II (n=23 [11 female, 12 male]; mean age, 17.9 ± 1.34 years) was treated with the conventional MBT bracket system. Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalometric radiograms were obtained and arch widths were measured for each subject. Paired samples t-test was used to evaluate the treatment changes within each group. To compare the changes between groups, independent samples t-test was performed. Results: No significant change was detected in the sagittal and vertical skeletal parameters in both groups (p>0.05). The upper and lower incisors proclined significantly in Group I (p

Özet

Amaç: İki farklı tedavi yaklaşımının sefalometrik ölçümler ve ark genişlikleri üzerindeki etkilerini karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Sınıf I maloklüzyona sahip ve orta-şiddetli çapraşıklığı bulunan 45 bireyin sefalometrik radyografileri ve dental modelleri elde edilmiştir. Bireyler çekim yapılmayan (birinci) ve dört premolar çekimli (ikinci) olmak üzere iki gruba ayrılmıştır. Birinci grup, Damon Q sistemi ile tedavi gören 22 hastadan (9 kız, 13 erkek ortalama yaş 18.0 ± 1.68) oluşmakta iken ikinci grup konvansiyonel MBT braket sistemi ile tedavi edilen 23 hastadan (11 kız, 12 erkek yaş ortalaması: 17.9 ± 1.34) oluşmaktadır. Hastaların tedavi öncesi ve sonrası lateral sefalometrik radyografileri ve ark genişlikleri ölçülüp karşılaştırılmıştır. Her gruptaki tedavi değişikliklerini değerlendirmek için eşleştirilmiş örnekler t-testi kullanıldı. Gruplar arasındaki değişiklikleri karşılaştırmak için bağımsız örnekler t-testi yapıldı. Bulgular: Her iki grupta da tedavi ile sagital ve vertikal iskeletsel değerlerde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir değişiklik görülmemiştir (p>0,05). Üst ve alt kesici dişlerde birinci grupta anlamlı proklinasyon gözlenirken (p

🔖

Cite This Article

Yavan, M. A., Guler, S., Eglenen, M. N., Karaca, M. N. (2022). A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF EXTRACTION AND NONEXTRACTION ORTHODONTIC TREATMENTS ON CEPHALOMETRIC PARAMETERS AND ARCH WIDTHS. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1, 47–56. https://ajindex.com/articles/476863

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Aksu M, Kocadereli I. Arch width changes in extraction and nonextraction treatment in class I patients. Angle Orthod 2005;75:948-952
  2. Little RM, Wallen TR., Riedel RA. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment—first premolar extraction cases treated by traditional edgewise orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1981;80:349-365
  3. Bishara, SE, Cummins DM, Jakobsen JR. The morphologic basis for the extraction decision in Class II, division 1 malocclusions: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:129-135
  4. Freitas KMS, Freitas DS, Valarelli FP, Freitas MR, Janson G. PAR evaluation of treated Class I extraction patients. Angle Orthod 2008;78:270-274
  5. Johnson DK, Smith RJ. Smile estheties after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:162-167
  6. Paquette DE, Beattie JR, Johnston Jr LE. A long-term comparison of nonextraction and premolar extraction edgewise therapy in “borderline” Class II patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:1-14
  7. Weinberg M, Sadowsky C. Resolution of mandibular arch tooth size arch length discrepancies in growing patients with Class I malocclusions treated nonextraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:359-364
  8. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:340-347
  9. Loh KW. Rapid tooth movement with a low-force, low-friction bracket system. J Clin Orthod 2007;41:451-457
  10. DH D. Damon system, The Workbook. Sybron Dental 2004;14
  11. Tagawa D. The Damon system vs. conventional appliances: a comparative study. Clin Impressions 2006;15:4-9
  12. Damon D.The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self ligating bracket. Clinical orthodontics and research 1998;1:52-61
  13. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Comparative assessment of conventional and self-ligating appliances on the effect of mandibular intermolar distance in adolescent nonextraction patients: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:99-105
  14. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of tooth size arch length discrepancies using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:248-253
  15. Cattaneo PM, Treccani M, Carlsson K, Thorgeirsson T, Myrda A, Cev