The Angle orthodontist · 2019
Appraisal of the relationship between tooth inclination, dehiscence, fenestration, and sagittal skeletal pattern with cone beam computed tomography.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Coşkun İpek, Kaya Burçak
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between sagittal facial pattern and dehiscence/fenestration presence in conjunction with buccolingual tooth inclination by using cone beam computed tomography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out on the cone beam computed tomography scans of the following three groups of patients (n = 20 in each group): Class I, Class II, Class III. Buccolingual tooth inclination, buccal dehiscence/fenestration presence, and lingual dehiscence/fenestration presence were evaluated on each tooth. Analysis of variance, Kruskall-Wallis H, Scheffe, and chi-square tests were used for statistical comparisons.
RESULTS: Differences (P < .05) were observed between the groups for inclination of upper incisors and all lower teeth except for second molars. Dehiscence prevalence in the upper buccal and posterior buccal regions was higher (P < .05) in the Class I group when compared with the other groups. Lower buccal and anterior buccal regions showed higher (P = .0001) dehiscence prevalence in all groups. No difference was observed in fenestration prevalence between the groups. The upper buccal and anterior buccal regions showed higher (P = .0001) fenestration prevalence in all groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists must consider concealed alveolar defects in treatment planning to avoid gingival recession or tooth mobility.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out on the cone beam computed tomography scans of the following three groups of patients (n = 20 in each group): Class I, Class II, Class III. Buccolingual tooth inclination, buccal dehiscence/fenestration presence, and lingual dehiscence/fenestration presence were evaluated on each tooth. Analysis of variance, Kruskall-Wallis H, Scheffe, and chi-square tests were used for statistical comparisons.
RESULTS: Differences (P < .05) were observed between the groups for inclination of upper incisors and all lower teeth except for second molars. Dehiscence prevalence in the upper buccal and posterior buccal regions was higher (P < .05) in the Class I group when compared with the other groups. Lower buccal and anterior buccal regions showed higher (P = .0001) dehiscence prevalence in all groups. No difference was observed in fenestration prevalence between the groups. The upper buccal and anterior buccal regions showed higher (P = .0001) fenestration prevalence in all groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists must consider concealed alveolar defects in treatment planning to avoid gingival recession or tooth mobility.