Dergiler / International Dental Research / 2021 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: Supplement 1

Comparison of cephalometric changes resulting from different upper incisor intrusion methods

Sayfa
176–193
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
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)

Conclusion: The methods used for intrusion showed to cause similar ratio of root resorption.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: The aim of this study was to provide intrusion of upper incisors with applying Connecticut Intrusion Arch (CIA) and Miniscrew and to evaluate the dental and skeletal cephalometric effects of these intrusion methods on individuals with deep bite caused by supraocclusion of upper incisors.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methodology: The study includes 40 adults, without making sexual distinction, who have at least 4 mm deep bite caused by supraocclusion of upper incisors.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusion: The methods used for intrusion showed to cause similar ratio of root resorption.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to provide intrusion of upper incisors with applying Connecticut Intrusion Arch (CIA) and Miniscrew and to evaluate the dental and skeletal cephalometric effects of these intrusion methods on individuals with deep bite caused by supraocclusion of upper incisors. Methodology: The study includes 40 adults, without making sexual distinction, who have at least 4 mm deep bite caused by supraocclusion of upper incisors. Two study groups each consisting 20 individuals formed as CIA and Miniscrew groups. Skeletal, dental, soft tissue measurements were done on lateral cephalograms and apical root resorption measurements were done on standard periapical radiographs that were taken from upper four incisor teeth. Statistically, Paired Student’s t-test was used in intragroup comparements and independent Student’s t-test was used in the investigation of differences between groups. Nevertheless, the concern of variables that seen as risk factors with the amount of resorption was investigated with Pearson correlation analysis. Results: Successful intrusion of four upper incisor teeth with CIA and Mini screw methods and in-significant difference was determined between two methods. Protrusion of upper and lower incisor teeth decrease in interincisal angle and overbite and increase in overjet was stated by intrusion at both of the methods. The decline of the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar was observed in the CIA method. In soft tissue evaluation, decrease of upper lip length, upper lip thickness and distance of upper and lower lip to the Rickett’s plane was observed. Conclusion: The methods used for intrusion showed to cause similar ratio of root resorption.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

HAMAMCI, O., TÜMEN, D. S. (2022). Comparison of cephalometric changes resulting from different upper incisor intrusion methods. International Dental Research, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: Supplement 1, 176–193. https://ajindex.com/articles/539445

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (17)

  1. Janzen EK. A balanced smile-a most important treatment objective. Am J Orthod 1977; 72: 359-72. (Crossref
  2. Kokich VO Jr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999;11: 311-24. (Crossref
  3. Hulsey CM. An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod 1970; 57: 132-44. (Crossref
  4. Mackley RJ. An evaluation of smiles before and after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1993; 63: 183-9
  5. Proffit WR, Fields HW. Contemporary orthodontics. St. Louise: CV Mosby, 1986
  6. Dermaut LR, DePauro G. Biomechanical aspects of Class II mechanics with special emphasis on deep bite correction as part of the treatment goal. In: Nanda R, editors. Biomechanics in Clinical Orthodontics. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1996
  7. Tosun Y. Biomechanical principles of fixed orthodontic appliances. 1th ed. İzmir: Ege University Publication; 1999, 172-93
  8. Proffit WR, Fields HW. Contemporary orthodontics. 3rd ed St Louis: Mosby Year Book, 2000, 200-2
  9. Bell WH, Jacobs JD, Legan HL. Treatment of Class II deep bite by orthodontic and surgical means. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1984; 85: 1-20. (Crossref
  10. Nanda R. Correction of deep overbite in adults. Dent Clin North Am 1997; 41: 67-87
  11. Costopoulos G, Nanda R. An evaluation of root resorption incident to orthodontic intrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 109: 543-48. (Crossref
  12. Amasyalı M, Sağdıç D, Ölmez H, Akın E, Karaçay Ş. Intrusive effects of the connecticut intrusion arch and the utility intrusion arch. Turk J Med Sci 2005; 35: 407-15
  13. Umemori M, Sugawara J, Mitani H, Nagasaka H, Kawamura H. Skeletal anchorage system for open-bite correction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 115: 166-74. (Crossref
  14. Costa A, Raffaini M, Melsen B. Microscrews as orthodontic anchorage: A preliminary report. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1998; 13: 201-9
  15. Melsen B, Lang NP. Biological reactions of alveolar bone to orthodontic loading of oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 144-52. (Crossref
  16. Freudenthaler JW, Haas R, Bantleon HP. Bicortical titanium screws for critical orthodontic anchorage in the mandible: A preliminary report on clinical application. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 358-63. (Crossref
  17. Herman RJ, Currier GF, Miyake A. Mini-implant anchorage for maxillary canine retraction: A pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 228-35. (Crossref