American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2014
Long- and short-term effects of headgear traction with and without the maxillary second molars.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка 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.
Shpack Nir, Brosh Tamar, Mazor Yoav, Shapinko Yoav, Davidovitch Moshe, Sarig Rachel, Reimann Susanne, Bourauel Christoph, Vardimon Alexander D
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: A quantitative assessment of maxillary first molar distalization with and without the maxillary second molar (M2) was carried out.
METHODS: Fifty-six cervical headgear patients undergoing fixed appliance orthodontic treatment were divided into 2 groups: before (G - M2) and after (G + M2) eruption of the maxillary second molars (ages, 11.87 ± 1.20, and 13.05 ± 1.55 years, respectively). The tightness of the dental contact point (TDCP) and the space between the second premolar and the maxillary first molar were measured at 6 levels of headgear force (0-15 N) at 3 intervals 6 months apart (T0, T1, T2).
RESULTS: Relationships were found between space and TDCP, time, and presence or absence of the maxillary second molar at T1 and T2 (P <0.001). The TDCP decreased and space increased with increase in initial headgear force. An increase in initial force beyond 6 to 9 N did not significantly increase the initial maxillary first molar distalization. The G - M2 TDCP and space measurements were similar to those of G + M2 at T2 with the eruption of the maxillary second molar. From T0 to T1, maxillary first molar distalization was greater in G - M2. In comparison with our previous headgear-alone study, initial distalization with a fully bonded appliance was reduced by 4-fold.
CONCLUSIONS: Headgear therapy is more effective before the eruption of the maxillary second molar. Once it erupts, the distalization pace of the maxillary first molar is reduced, but it can nevertheless be pursued at a slower pace when the maxillary second molar is present.
METHODS: Fifty-six cervical headgear patients undergoing fixed appliance orthodontic treatment were divided into 2 groups: before (G - M2) and after (G + M2) eruption of the maxillary second molars (ages, 11.87 ± 1.20, and 13.05 ± 1.55 years, respectively). The tightness of the dental contact point (TDCP) and the space between the second premolar and the maxillary first molar were measured at 6 levels of headgear force (0-15 N) at 3 intervals 6 months apart (T0, T1, T2).
RESULTS: Relationships were found between space and TDCP, time, and presence or absence of the maxillary second molar at T1 and T2 (P <0.001). The TDCP decreased and space increased with increase in initial headgear force. An increase in initial force beyond 6 to 9 N did not significantly increase the initial maxillary first molar distalization. The G - M2 TDCP and space measurements were similar to those of G + M2 at T2 with the eruption of the maxillary second molar. From T0 to T1, maxillary first molar distalization was greater in G - M2. In comparison with our previous headgear-alone study, initial distalization with a fully bonded appliance was reduced by 4-fold.
CONCLUSIONS: Headgear therapy is more effective before the eruption of the maxillary second molar. Once it erupts, the distalization pace of the maxillary first molar is reduced, but it can nevertheless be pursued at a slower pace when the maxillary second molar is present.