European oral research · 2022
Comparison of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of two different mandibular advancement methods: conventional technique vs aesthetic approach.
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.
Camcı Hasan, Salmanpour Farhad
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different mandibular advancement methods on skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue structures through cephalometric measurements.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different mandibular advancement methods on skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue structures through cephalometric measurements.
RESULTS: The mandibular base was observed to move forward significantly in both groups (p<0.05). However, the forward movement of the mandibular base was greater in the TB group than in the EA group (p<0.05). There was no difference in lower incisor protrusion between the two treatment methods. The EA device was found to cause a significant increase in vertical direction parameters (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Both methods resulted in Class II malocclusion correction as well as an acceptable occlusion plus profile. The effects of EA were primarily dentoalveolar. In patients with high aesthetic expectations, EA could be an alternative for TB.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different mandibular advancement methods on skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue structures through cephalometric measurements.
RESULTS: The mandibular base was observed to move forward significantly in both groups (p<0.05). However, the forward movement of the mandibular base was greater in the TB group than in the EA group (p<0.05). There was no difference in lower incisor protrusion between the two treatment methods. The EA device was found to cause a significant increase in vertical direction parameters (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Both methods resulted in Class II malocclusion correction as well as an acceptable occlusion plus profile. The effects of EA were primarily dentoalveolar. In patients with high aesthetic expectations, EA could be an alternative for TB.