The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2021
Maxillary Development in Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Compared with Individuals Having Skeletal Class I and Class III Malocclusion.
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.
Doğan Ege, Ergican Gülen Özses, Doğan Servet
Аннотация
AIM: To compare maxillary development of individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate (CLP) to individuals with skeletal Class I and Class III malocclusions.
STUDY DESIGN: Cephalometric X-ray films from 90 patients (mean age: 13 ± 2.3 years) were used. The number of samples was determined by Power analysis and three groups consisting of 30 patients (Group 1: Skeletal Class I, Group 2: Skeletal Class III, Group 3: CLP) were formed. A total of 13 cephalometric measurements were performed using Dolphin imaging software 11.7. The Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA tests were used to calculate the differences. The Dunn test and Bonferroni correction were used in paired group comparisons.
RESULTS: SNA, Co-A, A-PTV Horizontal, Na-APog, A-Na-Pog, FH-NA, Sn'-Mx1, MxOP-TVL (p<0.001***), U6-PTV Vertical (p<0.01**), and NaBa PTV-Gn (p<0.05*) values were significantly different between the three groups. There was no significant difference in Na-ANS, FH-NPog, or Mx1 labial-ULA. SNA, Co-A, A-PTV Horizontal, Na-APog, and A-Na-Pog values between the 1st and 2nd groups and between the 1st and 3rd groups (p<0.001***) were significantly different. FH-Na-A, Sn'-Mx1, MxOP-TVL (p<0.001***), and U6-PTV vertical were different between groups 1 and 3 (p<0.01**), while FH-Na-A (p<0.001***), Sn'-Mx1, MxOP-TVL (p<0.01**), A-PTV Horizontal, and A-Na-Pog (p<0.05*) were significantly different between groups 2 and 3.
CONCLUSION: Maxillary development in CLP differs from skeletal Class I but is similar to skeletal Class III. Considering the delay in maxillary development in the CLP patient, maxillary protraction and maxillary expansion are important treatment protocols in the early period.
STUDY DESIGN: Cephalometric X-ray films from 90 patients (mean age: 13 ± 2.3 years) were used. The number of samples was determined by Power analysis and three groups consisting of 30 patients (Group 1: Skeletal Class I, Group 2: Skeletal Class III, Group 3: CLP) were formed. A total of 13 cephalometric measurements were performed using Dolphin imaging software 11.7. The Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA tests were used to calculate the differences. The Dunn test and Bonferroni correction were used in paired group comparisons.
RESULTS: SNA, Co-A, A-PTV Horizontal, Na-APog, A-Na-Pog, FH-NA, Sn'-Mx1, MxOP-TVL (p<0.001***), U6-PTV Vertical (p<0.01**), and NaBa PTV-Gn (p<0.05*) values were significantly different between the three groups. There was no significant difference in Na-ANS, FH-NPog, or Mx1 labial-ULA. SNA, Co-A, A-PTV Horizontal, Na-APog, and A-Na-Pog values between the 1st and 2nd groups and between the 1st and 3rd groups (p<0.001***) were significantly different. FH-Na-A, Sn'-Mx1, MxOP-TVL (p<0.001***), and U6-PTV vertical were different between groups 1 and 3 (p<0.01**), while FH-Na-A (p<0.001***), Sn'-Mx1, MxOP-TVL (p<0.01**), A-PTV Horizontal, and A-Na-Pog (p<0.05*) were significantly different between groups 2 and 3.
CONCLUSION: Maxillary development in CLP differs from skeletal Class I but is similar to skeletal Class III. Considering the delay in maxillary development in the CLP patient, maxillary protraction and maxillary expansion are important treatment protocols in the early period.