American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2015
Esthetic judgments of palatally displaced canines 3 months postdebond after surgical exposure with either a closed or an open technique.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Parkin Nicola A, Freeman Jennifer V, Deery Chris, Benson Philip E
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the esthetic judgments of orthodontists and laypeople regarding the appearance of palatally displaced canines 3 months after treatment with either a closed or an open surgical exposure and orthodontic alignment.
METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was undertaken in 3 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Patients with unilateral palatally displaced canines were randomly allocated to receive either a closed or an open surgical exposure. The teeth were aligned with fixed appliances, and 3 months after debond, intraoral photographs were taken. The photographs were projected in random order to 2 panels of judges (orthodontists and laypeople), who completed a questionnaire.
RESULTS: The images of 67 participants (closed, 33; open, 34) were included. The laypeople were able to identify the operated tooth only 49.7% of the time (95% CI, 45.3%-54.0%); this was no better than chance (P = 0.880). The orthodontists were more successful but still identified the treated canine with certainty only 60.7% of the time (95% CI, 53.7%-67.8%; P = 0.003). Both panels more frequently assessed the unoperated canine to have a better appearance than the contralateral operated canine; however, there were no differences between the closed and open groups (proportion preferring unoperated canine-laypeople: closed, 58.7%; open, 57.0%; P = 0.43; and orthodontists: closed, 60.9%; open, 60.6%; P = 0.27).
CONCLUSIONS: There is an esthetic impact to aligning a palatally displaced canine, but it is mostly minor and unlikely to be detectable by laypeople. The esthetic impact was the same, whether the canine was exposed with a closed or an open surgical technique.
METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was undertaken in 3 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Patients with unilateral palatally displaced canines were randomly allocated to receive either a closed or an open surgical exposure. The teeth were aligned with fixed appliances, and 3 months after debond, intraoral photographs were taken. The photographs were projected in random order to 2 panels of judges (orthodontists and laypeople), who completed a questionnaire.
RESULTS: The images of 67 participants (closed, 33; open, 34) were included. The laypeople were able to identify the operated tooth only 49.7% of the time (95% CI, 45.3%-54.0%); this was no better than chance (P = 0.880). The orthodontists were more successful but still identified the treated canine with certainty only 60.7% of the time (95% CI, 53.7%-67.8%; P = 0.003). Both panels more frequently assessed the unoperated canine to have a better appearance than the contralateral operated canine; however, there were no differences between the closed and open groups (proportion preferring unoperated canine-laypeople: closed, 58.7%; open, 57.0%; P = 0.43; and orthodontists: closed, 60.9%; open, 60.6%; P = 0.27).
CONCLUSIONS: There is an esthetic impact to aligning a palatally displaced canine, but it is mostly minor and unlikely to be detectable by laypeople. The esthetic impact was the same, whether the canine was exposed with a closed or an open surgical technique.