International orthodontics · 2026
Comparative post-treatment incisor inclination and mandibular plane angle in adults treated with lingual and labial fixed appliances under miniscrew-supported nonextraction mechanics: A retrospective study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nguyen Viet Anh, Pham Thi Ngoc Anh, Nguyen Huy Cong, Dang Thi Ngan, Nguyen Thu Tra
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare post-treatment incisor inclination and mandibular plane angle outcomes between preadjusted lingual and self-ligating labial fixed appliances in adults treated with miniscrew-supported nonextraction mechanics.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective comparative study included 95 adults treated with comprehensive fixed appliances (lingual, n=47; labial, n=48) and miniscrew-supported mechanics. Primary outcomes were post-treatment upper incisor to sella-nasion angle (U1-SN), incisor mandibular plane angle (IMPA), and sella-nasion to gonion-gnathion angle (SN-GoGn). Between-group differences were assessed using adjusted linear models controlling for baseline values and clinically relevant covariates (including malocclusion class, crowding burden, and treatment duration). Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the stability of the results.
RESULTS: After adjustment, appliance type was associated with post-treatment mandibular incisor inclination: the labial group showed greater lower incisor proclination, whereas the lingual group maintained lower IMPA. In contrast, no clear between-group differences were observed for post-treatment U1-SN or SN-GoGn. Covariate patterns were clinically coherent, with sagittal classification and crowding contributing to incisor-position outcomes. Sensitivity analyses supported the stability of the main findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Under miniscrew-supported nonextraction mechanics in adults, preadjusted lingual and self-ligating labial fixed appliances showed comparable outcomes for maxillary incisor inclination and mandibular plane angle. The preadjusted lingual protocol was associated with less post-treatment mandibular incisor proclination, although the clinical significance of this difference should be interpreted cautiously and may depend on treatment context.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective comparative study included 95 adults treated with comprehensive fixed appliances (lingual, n=47; labial, n=48) and miniscrew-supported mechanics. Primary outcomes were post-treatment upper incisor to sella-nasion angle (U1-SN), incisor mandibular plane angle (IMPA), and sella-nasion to gonion-gnathion angle (SN-GoGn). Between-group differences were assessed using adjusted linear models controlling for baseline values and clinically relevant covariates (including malocclusion class, crowding burden, and treatment duration). Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the stability of the results.
RESULTS: After adjustment, appliance type was associated with post-treatment mandibular incisor inclination: the labial group showed greater lower incisor proclination, whereas the lingual group maintained lower IMPA. In contrast, no clear between-group differences were observed for post-treatment U1-SN or SN-GoGn. Covariate patterns were clinically coherent, with sagittal classification and crowding contributing to incisor-position outcomes. Sensitivity analyses supported the stability of the main findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Under miniscrew-supported nonextraction mechanics in adults, preadjusted lingual and self-ligating labial fixed appliances showed comparable outcomes for maxillary incisor inclination and mandibular plane angle. The preadjusted lingual protocol was associated with less post-treatment mandibular incisor proclination, although the clinical significance of this difference should be interpreted cautiously and may depend on treatment context.