American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2013
Is the growth pattern in mouth breathers comparable with the counterclockwise mandibular rotation of nasal breathers?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Franco Letícia Paiva, Souki Bernardo Quiroga, Pereira Tatiana Bahia J, Meyge de Brito Gabriela, Gonçalves Becker Helena M, Pinto Jorge A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this longitudinal study was to investigate mandibular rotation and angular remodeling in mouth-breathing children compared with nasal-breathing children.
METHODS: The sample included 55 severely obstructed mouth-breathing children (mean age, 6.1 years) and 55 nasal-breathing children (mean age, 7.3 years). The cephalograms at baseline and after 1 year were traced and measured, and superimpositions were made to determine true mandibular rotation, apparent rotation, and angular remodeling. The significance level was set at 5%.
RESULTS: The mouth-breathing children had a longer face cephalometric pattern compared with nasal-breathing children. No cranial deflection differences were observed. No changes in the vertical growth pattern were observed during the 1-year period in either group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding apparent rotation (mouth breathing, -0.54°, vs nasal breathing, -0.41°). In comparison with the nasal breathers, the mouth breathers showed statistically significant lower yearly rates of counterclockwise true rotation (mouth breathing, -0.60°, vs nasal breathing, -1.31°) and angular remodeling (mouth breathing, 0.06°, vs nasal breathing, 0.87°).
CONCLUSIONS: Mouth-breathing children had a hyperdivergent cephalometric pattern, but against all expectations, counterclockwise true mandibular and apparent rotations were the average observations. Mouth-breathing children showed less true rotation and angular remodeling than did nasal breathers; however, apparent rotations were similar.
METHODS: The sample included 55 severely obstructed mouth-breathing children (mean age, 6.1 years) and 55 nasal-breathing children (mean age, 7.3 years). The cephalograms at baseline and after 1 year were traced and measured, and superimpositions were made to determine true mandibular rotation, apparent rotation, and angular remodeling. The significance level was set at 5%.
RESULTS: The mouth-breathing children had a longer face cephalometric pattern compared with nasal-breathing children. No cranial deflection differences were observed. No changes in the vertical growth pattern were observed during the 1-year period in either group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding apparent rotation (mouth breathing, -0.54°, vs nasal breathing, -0.41°). In comparison with the nasal breathers, the mouth breathers showed statistically significant lower yearly rates of counterclockwise true rotation (mouth breathing, -0.60°, vs nasal breathing, -1.31°) and angular remodeling (mouth breathing, 0.06°, vs nasal breathing, 0.87°).
CONCLUSIONS: Mouth-breathing children had a hyperdivergent cephalometric pattern, but against all expectations, counterclockwise true mandibular and apparent rotations were the average observations. Mouth-breathing children showed less true rotation and angular remodeling than did nasal breathers; however, apparent rotations were similar.