American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2024
The treatment effects of maxillary asymmetric mechanics with the use of the mesial-distalslider: A retrospective study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
De Felice Maria Elena, Caruso Silvia, Küffer Maximilian, Drescher Dieter, Wilmes Benedict
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study had 2 objectives: (1) to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the Mesial-Distalslider (MD) appliance when used for simultaneous maxillary molar mesialization and distalization in patients with a maxillary asymmetrical relationship and (2) to compare the outcomes with those achieved using the unilateral Mesialslider (UM) appliance.
METHODS: The sample included 40 subjects (25 females and 15 males) with a mean age of 22 years (range, 8-55 years). The patients were divided into 2 groups: 20 patients treated with an MD appliance (group 1) and a group of 20 patients treated with a UM appliance (group 2). Superimposition of digital dental models using regions of interest on the palate was performed to evaluate the 3-dimensional molar movements, the proclination or retroclination of the maxillary incisors, and the displacement of the maxillary midline.
RESULTS: At the end of the treatment, the MD group's total movements were 4.5 ± 2.2 mm (sagittal), -0.4 ± 2.4 mm (transverse), and 0.3 ± 0.9 mm (vertical) along the mesialization side and -2.4 ± 1.7 mm (sagittal), -0.5 ± 1.5 mm (transverse), and 0.2 ± 1.4 (vertical) along the distalization side. UM group total movements were 5.5 ± 3.6 mm (sagittal), -0.4 ± 2.7 mm (transverse), and 0.1 ± 2.0 mm (vertical). Incisor displacements were minimal. No statistically significant differences were found between the MD and UM groups for all the parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of the MD enables controlled movements in the sagittal direction with negligible dental side effects in the other planes (transverse and vertical). Furthermore, it facilitates asymmetrical movements simultaneously in the desired direction without the patient's compliance and provides good anchorage control.
METHODS: The sample included 40 subjects (25 females and 15 males) with a mean age of 22 years (range, 8-55 years). The patients were divided into 2 groups: 20 patients treated with an MD appliance (group 1) and a group of 20 patients treated with a UM appliance (group 2). Superimposition of digital dental models using regions of interest on the palate was performed to evaluate the 3-dimensional molar movements, the proclination or retroclination of the maxillary incisors, and the displacement of the maxillary midline.
RESULTS: At the end of the treatment, the MD group's total movements were 4.5 ± 2.2 mm (sagittal), -0.4 ± 2.4 mm (transverse), and 0.3 ± 0.9 mm (vertical) along the mesialization side and -2.4 ± 1.7 mm (sagittal), -0.5 ± 1.5 mm (transverse), and 0.2 ± 1.4 (vertical) along the distalization side. UM group total movements were 5.5 ± 3.6 mm (sagittal), -0.4 ± 2.7 mm (transverse), and 0.1 ± 2.0 mm (vertical). Incisor displacements were minimal. No statistically significant differences were found between the MD and UM groups for all the parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of the MD enables controlled movements in the sagittal direction with negligible dental side effects in the other planes (transverse and vertical). Furthermore, it facilitates asymmetrical movements simultaneously in the desired direction without the patient's compliance and provides good anchorage control.