The Angle orthodontist · 2017
A comparative study of the effect of the intrusion arch and straight wire mechanics on incisor root resorption: A randomized, controlled trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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 Almeida Marcio Rodrigues, Marçal Aline Siqueira Butzke, Fernandes Thais Maria Freire, Vasconcelos Juliana Brito, de Almeida Renato Rodrigues, Nanda Ravindra
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare external apical root resorption (EARR) of maxillary incisors treated by intrusion arch or continuous archwire mechanics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) study analyzed 28 deep bite patients in the permanent dentition who were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1, 12 patients with initial mean age of 15.1 ± 1.6 years and mean overbite of 4.6 ± 1.2 mm treated with the Connecticut intrusion arch (CIA) in the upper arch (Ortho Organizers, Carlsbad, Calif) for a mean period of 5.8 ± 1.27 months. Group 2, 16 patients with initial mean age of 22.1 ± 5.7 years and mean overbite of 4.1 ± 1.1 mm treated with conventional leveling and alignment using continuous archwire mechanics for 6.1 ± 0.81 months. The degree of EARR was detected in 112 maxillary incisors by using CBCT scans and a three-dimensional program (Dolphin 11.7, Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif). The CBCT scans were obtained before (T1) and 6 months after initiation of treatment (T2). Differences between and within groups were assessed by nonpaired and paired t-tests, respectively, with a 5% significance level.
RESULTS: Significant differences were found for both groups between T1 and T2 ( P < .05) indicating that EARR occurred in both groups. However, there were no significant differences when EARR was compared between group 1 (-0.76 mm) and group 2 (-0.59 mm).
CONCLUSIONS: The Connecticut intrusion arch did not lead to greater EARR of maxillary incisors when compared with conventional orthodontic mechanics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) study analyzed 28 deep bite patients in the permanent dentition who were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1, 12 patients with initial mean age of 15.1 ± 1.6 years and mean overbite of 4.6 ± 1.2 mm treated with the Connecticut intrusion arch (CIA) in the upper arch (Ortho Organizers, Carlsbad, Calif) for a mean period of 5.8 ± 1.27 months. Group 2, 16 patients with initial mean age of 22.1 ± 5.7 years and mean overbite of 4.1 ± 1.1 mm treated with conventional leveling and alignment using continuous archwire mechanics for 6.1 ± 0.81 months. The degree of EARR was detected in 112 maxillary incisors by using CBCT scans and a three-dimensional program (Dolphin 11.7, Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif). The CBCT scans were obtained before (T1) and 6 months after initiation of treatment (T2). Differences between and within groups were assessed by nonpaired and paired t-tests, respectively, with a 5% significance level.
RESULTS: Significant differences were found for both groups between T1 and T2 ( P < .05) indicating that EARR occurred in both groups. However, there were no significant differences when EARR was compared between group 1 (-0.76 mm) and group 2 (-0.59 mm).
CONCLUSIONS: The Connecticut intrusion arch did not lead to greater EARR of maxillary incisors when compared with conventional orthodontic mechanics.