American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2016
Root resorption in Class II malocclusion treatment with Class II elastics.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Janson Guilherme, Niederberger Ana, Garib Daniela Gamba, Caldas Waleska
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this investigation was to compare the amount of apical root resorption in nonextraction treatment of Class II malocclusions with and without Class II elastics.
METHODS: A sample of 54 patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, retrospectively selected, was divided into 2 groups. The elastic group consisted of 27 patients who were exclusively treated with fixed appliances associated with elastics, and the headgear group consisted of 27 patients treated with fixed appliances and extraoral headgear. The groups were matched regarding initial age, treatment time, amount of overjet, initial malocclusion severity, final occlusal status, and severity of Class II molar relationship. Posttreatment periapical radiographs of the maxillary and mandibular central and lateral incisors were used to evaluate root resorption. The amounts of resorption in the groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U tests.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the amounts of root resorption between the elastic and the headgear groups.
CONCLUSION: Nonextraction treatment of Class II malocclusions with Class II elastics associated with fixed appliances causes similar root resorption as treatment with extraoral headgear and fixed appliances. Apical root resorption was predominantly mild and similar in the 2 groups.
METHODS: A sample of 54 patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, retrospectively selected, was divided into 2 groups. The elastic group consisted of 27 patients who were exclusively treated with fixed appliances associated with elastics, and the headgear group consisted of 27 patients treated with fixed appliances and extraoral headgear. The groups were matched regarding initial age, treatment time, amount of overjet, initial malocclusion severity, final occlusal status, and severity of Class II molar relationship. Posttreatment periapical radiographs of the maxillary and mandibular central and lateral incisors were used to evaluate root resorption. The amounts of resorption in the groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U tests.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the amounts of root resorption between the elastic and the headgear groups.
CONCLUSION: Nonextraction treatment of Class II malocclusions with Class II elastics associated with fixed appliances causes similar root resorption as treatment with extraoral headgear and fixed appliances. Apical root resorption was predominantly mild and similar in the 2 groups.