Journal of stomatology, oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2023
Comparison of masticatory myofunctional rehabilitation combined with conventional functional appliances for the treatment of class Ⅱ, division 1 malocclusion. A retrospective cohort 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.
Xia Tian, Luo Ruxi, Wang Mengxing
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical efficacy of early masticatory myofunction rehabilitation combined with conventional functional appliances for the treatment of class Ⅱ, division 1 malocclusion in orthodontic children during the growing phase.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: A comparative retrospective cohort study, enrolled patients diagnosed with class Ⅱ/1 in the stage of late mixed or early permanent dentition. Patients were divided into a TBA group (Cohort 1): receiving Twin-block appliance treatment; and a MMR group (Cohort 2): receiving either early masticatory myofunction rehabilitation as adjunctive therapy combined with the same conventional functional appliances. The study variables were active (Phase 1) treatment duration, oral esthetic subjective impact score (OASIS), several cephalometric indices calculated from X-ray photographs, the maximum voltage (mV) and asymmetry index (AsI) of anterior temporalis (TA) and masseter muscles (MM) before and after treatment. Complications were also recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 424 cases were enrolled. The mean treatment duration in the MMR group was 168.33 days (SD: 25.43) and 215.00 days (SD: 28.81) in the TBA group; mean difference: -46.67 days (95% CI: [-81.62, -11.71]), P<0.001. For the OASIS outcome measure, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean total scores for the MMR group (18.83±7.73) or TBA group (17.67±6.47) groups adjusted to include pre-treatment OASIS scores (P = 0.783). After treatment, sella-nasion-B point (SNB), mandibular incisor angle, maxillary base and mandibular base in both two groups were significantly increased, while AB plane angle (ANB), maxillary incisor angle, overjet and overbite were significantly decreased. The mV and AsI of TA and MM were also improved following treatment. However, no significant differences were observed between two groups.
CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed that early masticatory myofunction rehabilitation in combination with conventional TBA for patients in the growing phase was significantly effective in the management of class Ⅱ/1 in orthodontic treatment, which could significantly shorten the treatment duration and had the similar improvement in the cephalometry data, OASIS scores and masticatory muscles function when comparing to conventional TBA alone.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: A comparative retrospective cohort study, enrolled patients diagnosed with class Ⅱ/1 in the stage of late mixed or early permanent dentition. Patients were divided into a TBA group (Cohort 1): receiving Twin-block appliance treatment; and a MMR group (Cohort 2): receiving either early masticatory myofunction rehabilitation as adjunctive therapy combined with the same conventional functional appliances. The study variables were active (Phase 1) treatment duration, oral esthetic subjective impact score (OASIS), several cephalometric indices calculated from X-ray photographs, the maximum voltage (mV) and asymmetry index (AsI) of anterior temporalis (TA) and masseter muscles (MM) before and after treatment. Complications were also recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 424 cases were enrolled. The mean treatment duration in the MMR group was 168.33 days (SD: 25.43) and 215.00 days (SD: 28.81) in the TBA group; mean difference: -46.67 days (95% CI: [-81.62, -11.71]), P<0.001. For the OASIS outcome measure, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean total scores for the MMR group (18.83±7.73) or TBA group (17.67±6.47) groups adjusted to include pre-treatment OASIS scores (P = 0.783). After treatment, sella-nasion-B point (SNB), mandibular incisor angle, maxillary base and mandibular base in both two groups were significantly increased, while AB plane angle (ANB), maxillary incisor angle, overjet and overbite were significantly decreased. The mV and AsI of TA and MM were also improved following treatment. However, no significant differences were observed between two groups.
CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed that early masticatory myofunction rehabilitation in combination with conventional TBA for patients in the growing phase was significantly effective in the management of class Ⅱ/1 in orthodontic treatment, which could significantly shorten the treatment duration and had the similar improvement in the cephalometry data, OASIS scores and masticatory muscles function when comparing to conventional TBA alone.