MedElevator
Войти в исследования Clinical oral investigations · 2024
Comparative assessment of the clinical outcomes of clear aligners compared to fixed appliance in class II malocclusion.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Irsheid Ruwa, Godoy Lucas Da Cunha, Kuo Chia-Ling, Metz John, Dolce Calogero, Abu Arqub Sarah
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study compared clinical outcomes between aligners and fixed appliances in class II adolescent patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 31 aligners and 35 fixed class II patients, aged 13.5 ± 1.6 years were compared. Class II elastics was the mechanism employed for correcting the malocclusion. DI scores were used to compare initial complexity, and the PAR index scores were used to compare the clinical outcomes. Data on demographics, treatment and finishing durations, number of visits and refinements, duration of class II correction, and changes in the IMPA were collected.
RESULTS: The mean pre-, post-treatment, and overall reduction in PAR index scores between the groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05). The clear aligners group had significantly shorter treatment duration (20.0 ± 11.6 months) than the fixed group (27.4 ± 9.1 months) (P < 0.001). The number of visits for the aligners' group was significantly less (12.7 ± 6.2) than in the fixed group (17.8 ± 5.8) (P < 0.001). Duration for class II correction was significantly shorter for clear aligners (13.3 ± 10.0 months) compared to the fixed group (17.4 ± 9.0 months) (P = 0.026). A smaller post-treatment change in IMPA (2 ± 6°) was detected in the aligners group compared to the fixed group (5 ± 6°) (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment outcomes for aligners in class II adolescent patients were comparable to those achieved in fixed appliances. Shorter treatment and class II correction durations, fewer visits, and better control for the IMPA were noticed in the aligners' group.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Treating class II adolescent patients with aligners seems promising and demands shorter treatment time and fewer visits.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 31 aligners and 35 fixed class II patients, aged 13.5 ± 1.6 years were compared. Class II elastics was the mechanism employed for correcting the malocclusion. DI scores were used to compare initial complexity, and the PAR index scores were used to compare the clinical outcomes. Data on demographics, treatment and finishing durations, number of visits and refinements, duration of class II correction, and changes in the IMPA were collected.
RESULTS: The mean pre-, post-treatment, and overall reduction in PAR index scores between the groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05). The clear aligners group had significantly shorter treatment duration (20.0 ± 11.6 months) than the fixed group (27.4 ± 9.1 months) (P < 0.001). The number of visits for the aligners' group was significantly less (12.7 ± 6.2) than in the fixed group (17.8 ± 5.8) (P < 0.001). Duration for class II correction was significantly shorter for clear aligners (13.3 ± 10.0 months) compared to the fixed group (17.4 ± 9.0 months) (P = 0.026). A smaller post-treatment change in IMPA (2 ± 6°) was detected in the aligners group compared to the fixed group (5 ± 6°) (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment outcomes for aligners in class II adolescent patients were comparable to those achieved in fixed appliances. Shorter treatment and class II correction durations, fewer visits, and better control for the IMPA were noticed in the aligners' group.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Treating class II adolescent patients with aligners seems promising and demands shorter treatment time and fewer visits.