The Angle orthodontist · 2010
Early headgear effect on the eruption pattern of maxillary second molars.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Abed Yossi, Brin Ilana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the use of a combination headgear (HG) during the first phase of orthodontic treatment has no effect on the eruption pattern of the maxillary second permanent molars.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of the patients in a two-phase randomized clinical trial of early Class II treatment were utilized. The HG group comprised 47 patients, and the control (CON) group comprised 52 patients. The mean age of both groups was 9.4 years at the beginning of the clinical trial (T1). Cephalograms and panoramic views obtained at T1 and at the end of 15 months of phase I treatment or observation (T2) were utilized. The vertical and horizontal movements of the first and second upper molars (U6 and U7, respectively) were measured. The beginning of phase II (T3) and the end of phase II (T4) records were visually reviewed for follow-up of the eruption of the U7.
RESULTS: The pattern of movement for the distal and vertical displacement of the U6 and U7 was significantly different in the HG and CON groups (P < .001). At the end of phase I, none of the U7 in either group were diagnosed as malposed or suspected for impaction. At the end of phase II, all but one U7 with a possible cystic lesion had erupted.
CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis is rejected. Forces exerted by combination headgear to the U6 in phase I have a distalizing effect and a transitory slowing down effect on the eruption of the U7 buds. These latter teeth always erupted except when pathology occurred.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of the patients in a two-phase randomized clinical trial of early Class II treatment were utilized. The HG group comprised 47 patients, and the control (CON) group comprised 52 patients. The mean age of both groups was 9.4 years at the beginning of the clinical trial (T1). Cephalograms and panoramic views obtained at T1 and at the end of 15 months of phase I treatment or observation (T2) were utilized. The vertical and horizontal movements of the first and second upper molars (U6 and U7, respectively) were measured. The beginning of phase II (T3) and the end of phase II (T4) records were visually reviewed for follow-up of the eruption of the U7.
RESULTS: The pattern of movement for the distal and vertical displacement of the U6 and U7 was significantly different in the HG and CON groups (P < .001). At the end of phase I, none of the U7 in either group were diagnosed as malposed or suspected for impaction. At the end of phase II, all but one U7 with a possible cystic lesion had erupted.
CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis is rejected. Forces exerted by combination headgear to the U6 in phase I have a distalizing effect and a transitory slowing down effect on the eruption of the U7 buds. These latter teeth always erupted except when pathology occurred.