American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2017
Root resorption of maxillary incisors retracted with and without skeletal anchorage.
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.
Barros Sérgio Estelita, Janson Guilherme, Chiqueto Kelly, Baldo Vitor Oliveira, Baldo Taiana Oliveira
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to compare root resorption degree of the maxillary central incisors retracted with and without skeletal anchorage.
METHODS: This nonrandomized historical control study included 37 patients requiring maximum anterior retraction and treated with extraction of 2 maxillary premolars. Group 1 consisted of 22 patients (11 male, 11 female) in whom anterior retraction was performed without skeletal anchorage, and group 2 included 15 patients (3 male, 12 female) treated with skeletally anchored anterior retraction. Periapical radiographs were used to evaluate root resorption degree by a scoring system. The groups were compared regarding the resorption score and resorption degree distribution with the Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Z test on proportions.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant intergroup difference regarding root resorption, but the number of patients with severe and extreme root resorption degrees was significantly greater in group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the root resorption degree of the skeletal anchorage group was not significantly different from the group without skeletal anchorage, the number of patients with severe to extreme resorption in the first group was significantly greater. Therefore, careful clinical monitoring of skeletally anchored anterior retraction is needed, especially when there are known root resorption predisposing factors.
METHODS: This nonrandomized historical control study included 37 patients requiring maximum anterior retraction and treated with extraction of 2 maxillary premolars. Group 1 consisted of 22 patients (11 male, 11 female) in whom anterior retraction was performed without skeletal anchorage, and group 2 included 15 patients (3 male, 12 female) treated with skeletally anchored anterior retraction. Periapical radiographs were used to evaluate root resorption degree by a scoring system. The groups were compared regarding the resorption score and resorption degree distribution with the Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Z test on proportions.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant intergroup difference regarding root resorption, but the number of patients with severe and extreme root resorption degrees was significantly greater in group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the root resorption degree of the skeletal anchorage group was not significantly different from the group without skeletal anchorage, the number of patients with severe to extreme resorption in the first group was significantly greater. Therefore, careful clinical monitoring of skeletally anchored anterior retraction is needed, especially when there are known root resorption predisposing factors.