Dergiler / Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4

CHANGES IN THE DENTOFACIAL MORPHOLOGY BETWEEN CLASS II PATIENTS TREATED WITH ONE OF THE TWO TREATMENT MODALITIES: FUNCTIONAL APPLIANCE AND HEADGEAR. A RETROSPECTIVE CEPHALOMETRIC STUDY

Sayfa
500–506
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

However, this group experienced more prominent and positive effects on soft tissue facial profile.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: To compare changes in dentofacial morphology between Angle class II patients treated with one of two treatment modalities: functional appliance and headgear.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Material and Methods: Activator group comprised 14 Class II patients (mean age, 13.54 years), headgear (HG) group 15 Class II patients (mean age, 11.56 years) and control group 14 Class I subjects (mean age, 11.57 years).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:However, this group experienced more prominent and positive effects on soft tissue facial profile.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: To compare changes in dentofacial morphology between Angle class II patients treated with one of two treatment modalities: functional appliance and headgear. Material and Methods: Activator group comprised 14 Class II patients (mean age, 13.54 years), headgear (HG) group 15 Class II patients (mean age, 11.56 years) and control group 14 Class I subjects (mean age, 11.57 years). Pre-treatment/ baseline (T1) and post-treatment/observation (T2) lateral cephalograms were retrospectively analyzed using a standard cephalometric analysis. Data were analyzed by paired t test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD tests. Results: A point moved forward 0.50 and 0.51 mm in activator and control groups, but moved backward 0.37 mm in HG group, with no significant difference between groups. B point moved forward 3.32, 1.27 and 0.96 mm in activator, HG and control groups respectively, that significantly greater in activator group compared to other groups (p< .01). U1-SN angle decreased (7.39 degree) and IMPA increased (5.14 degree) significantly activator group, whereas U1-SN angle and IMPA showed small and insignificant changes (less than one degree) in HG and control groups. No significant difference observed between the groups in regard to changes in upper lip position, nasolabial angle, mandibular plane angle and mandibular body length. Favorable soft tissue facial profile changes were observed in the groups, but the changes are prominent in activator group (p< .05). Conclusion: HG group showed small and insignificant dentofacial changes. Functional appliance group showed favorable skeletal but unfavorable dentoalveolar changes. However, this group experienced more prominent and positive effects on soft tissue facial profile.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KILIÇ, N., ERDEM, A., TUNÇ, S. (2022). CHANGES IN THE DENTOFACIAL MORPHOLOGY BETWEEN CLASS II PATIENTS TREATED WITH ONE OF THE TWO TREATMENT MODALITIES: FUNCTIONAL APPLIANCE AND HEADGEAR. A RETROSPECTIVE CEPHALOMETRIC STUDY. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4, 500–506. https://ajindex.com/articles/451525

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (7)

  1. Keeling SD, Wheeler TT, King GJ, Garvan CW, Cohen DA, Cabassa S, McGorray SP, Taylor MG Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998; 113: 40-50
  2. Tulloch JF, Phillips C, Koch G, Proffit WR The effect of early intervention on skeletal pattern in Class II malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 1997; 111:391-400
  3. Haralabakis NB, Halazonetis DJ, Sifakakis IB Activator versus cervical headgear: superimpositional cephalometric comparison. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123: 296-305
  4. Maetevorakul S, Viteporn S. Factors Influencing Soft Tissue Profile Changes Following Orthodontic Treatment in Patients With Class II Division 1 Malocclusion. Prog Orthod 2016; 17:13
  5. Heino T, Kokko H, Vuollo V, Pirttiniemi P. Effect of cervical headgear on dental arch area, shape and interarch dimensions: A randomized study. 2020; J Orofac Orthop doi: 10.1007/s00056-020-00264- 0
  6. Falcão ICMCF, Valarelli FP, Canuto LFG, Oliveira RC, de Oliveira RCG, Cançado RH, Freitas KMS (2021). Soft tissue profile changes in Angle class II patients treated with Twin Force or intermaxillary elastics-a comparison. J Orofac Orthop 82:71-81
  7. Kochar GD, Londhe SM, Shivpuri A, Chopra SS, Mitra R, Verma M. Management of skeletal class II malocclusion using bimaxillary skeletal anchorage 1. Keeling SD, Wheeler TT, King GJ, Garvan CW, Cohen DA, Cabassa S, McGorray SP, Taylor MG Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998; 113: 40-50.