SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg.(. Clinical Dentistry and Research) / 2006 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 3

Angle sınıf II bölüm 1 malokluzyona sahip low-angle hastalarda servikal headgear ve alt utility ark mekaniğinin tedavi üzerine etkileri

Treatment effects of cervical headgear and lower utility arch mechanics in angle class II division 1 low-angle patients

Filiz YUKAY
Müge AKSU
Pages
74–84
Publication Date
2022-10-17
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)

Conclusion: These results showed that reverse response effect, which may be an effective way of controlling the mandibular rotational response, could be achieved by CHG+LUA.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: A prospective study was performed to evaluate the effects of cervical headgear and lower utility arch (CHG+LUA) in Class II division 1 lowangle patients and to determine whether reverse response occurred during the upper first molar distalization period.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: The assessment of cephalometric findings showed that significant reduction of maxillary protrusion, molar distalization, and extrusion were obtained in both groups.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: These results showed that reverse response effect, which may be an effective way of controlling the mandibular rotational response, could be achieved by CHG+LUA.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: A prospective study was performed to evaluate the effects of cervical headgear and lower utility arch (CHG+LUA) in Class II division 1 lowangle patients and to determine whether reverse response occurred during the upper first molar distalization period. Subjects and Methods: Thirty patients were included in the study and were divided in two groups. The first group was treated with CHG+LUA while the second group was treated only with cervical headgear (CHG). After achieving Angle class I molar relation, the cephalograms were taken. Results: The assessment of cephalometric findings showed that significant reduction of maxillary protrusion, molar distalization, and extrusion were obtained in both groups. LUA influenced the lower molar uprighting and the lower incisor intrusion significantly. The rotation of the mandible showed a significant increase in CHG group while it remained constant in CHG+LUA group. Conclusion: These results showed that reverse response effect, which may be an effective way of controlling the mandibular rotational response, could be achieved by CHG+LUA.

Özet

Amaç: Sınıf II bölüm 1 malokluzyona sahip lowangle hastalarda servikal headgear ve alt utility ark (CHG+LUA) uygulamasının etkilerini incelemek ve üst birinci molar distalizasyonu sırasında mandibulada “ters yanıt” etkisinin olup olmadığını araştırmaktır. Bireyler ve Yöntem: Tedaviye dahil edilen toplam 30 birey iki gruba ayrılmış, birinci gruba CHG+LUA, diğer gruba sadece CHG uygulanmıştır. Angle sınıf I molar ilişkisi elde edildikten sonra lateral sefalogramlar alınmıştır. Bulgular: Sefalometrik değerlendirmelerden elde edilen bulgular, her iki grupta da maksiller protrüzyonda azalma, molar distalizasyonu ve ekstrüzyonu elde edildiğini göstermektedir. Alt utility ark, alt molarda anlamlı dikleşmeye ve alt kesicilede anlamlı intrüyona neden olmuştur. Mandibuler rotasyon CHG grubunda anlamlı şekilde artarken, CHG+LUA grubunda sabit kalmıştır. Sonuç: Araştırma sonuçları, mandibular rotasyonun kontrolünde etkin bir yol olan “ters yanıt” etkisinin CHG+LUA uygulaması ile elde edilebileceğini göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YUKAY, F., AKSU, M. (2022). Angle sınıf II bölüm 1 malokluzyona sahip low-angle hastalarda servikal headgear ve alt utility ark mekaniğinin tedavi üzerine etkileri. Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg.(. Clinical Dentistry and Research), Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 3, 74–84. https://ajindex.com/articles/528483

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Cangialosi TJ, Meistrell ME Jr, Leung MA, Ko JY. A cephalometric appraisal of edgewise class II nonextraction treatment with extraoral force. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1988; 93: 315-324
  2. Badell MC. An evaluation of extraoral combined high-pull traction and cervical traction to the maxilla. Am J Orthod. 1976; 69:431-446
  3. Barton JJ. High–pull headgear versus cervical traction: a cephalometric comparison. Am J Orthod. 1972; 62: 517- 529
  4. Baumrind SE, Korn EL, Molthen R, West E. Change in facial dimensions associated with the use of forces to retract the maxilla. Am J Orthod. 1981; 80:17-30
  5. Brown P. A cephalometric evaluation of high-pull molar headgear and facebow neck strap therapy. Am J Orthod. 1978; 74: 621-632
  6. Droschl H. The effect of heavy orthopedic forces on the sutures of the facial bones. Angle Orthod. 1975: 45:26-33
  7. Mills CM, Holman GR, Graber TM. Heavy intermittent cervical traction in class II treatment- longitudinal cephalometric assessment. Am J Orthod. 1978; 74:361-379
  8. Baumrind S, Korn EL. Patterns of change in mandibular and facial shape associated with the use of forces to retract the maxilla. Am J Orthod. 1981; 80:31-47
  9. Klein PL. An evaluation of cervical traction of the maxilla and upper first permanent molar. Angle Orthod. 1957; 27: 61-68
  10. Melsen B. Effects of cervical anchorage during and after treatment: an implant study. Am J Orthod. 1978; 73: 526- 540
  11. Merrifield L, Cross J. Directional forces. Am J Orthod.1970; 57: 435-465
  12. Brown P. A cephalometric evaluation of high-pull molar headgear and face bow neck strap therapy. Am J Orthod. 1978; 74: 621-632
  13. Boecler PR, Riolo ML, Keeling SD, TenHave TR. Skeletal changes associated with extraoral appliance therapy: an evaluation of 200 consecutively treated cases. Angle Orthod. 1989; 59: 263-270
  14. Ricketts RM. The influence of orthodontic treatment on facial growth and development. Angle Orthod. 1960; 30:103-133
  15. Lulla P, Gianelly A. The mandibular plane and mandibular rotation. Am J Orthod. 1976; 70: 567-571
  16. Duterloo HS, Kragt G, Algra A. Holographic and cephalometric study of the relationship between craniofacial morphology and the initial reactions to high-pull headgear traction. Am J Orthod. 1985; 88: 297-302
  17. Burke M, Jacobson A. Vertical changes in high-angle Class II division 1 patients treated with cervical or occipital pull headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1992; 102: 501- 508
  18. Ricketts RM, Bench RW, Gugino CF