American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2022
A comparative assessment of the dentoskeletal effects of clear aligners vs miniplate-supported posterior intrusion with fixed appliances in adult patients with anterior open bite. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Steele Brett Peter, Pandis Nikolaos, Darendeliler M Ali, Papadopoulou Alexandra K
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the dentoskeletal effects of clear aligners (Invisalign) vs miniplate-supported posterior intrusion (MSPI) and identify factors associated with posttreatment overbite in adults with anterior open bite.
METHODS: Twenty-nine patients treated with Invisalign and 24 with MSPI combined with full-fixed orthodontic appliances were included from 5 orthodontic practices. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalometric measurements were included as outcomes. Comparisons across groups and identification of final overbite predictors were assessed with regression modeling and machine learning techniques.
RESULTS: MSPI induced significantly greater maxillary molar intrusion (1.5 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-2.17; P <0.001), with subsequent reduction of anterior face height (ANS-Me) (-2.77 mm; 95% CI, -3.64 to -1.91; P <0.001), Mp-SN° (-1.95°; 95% CI, -2.77 to -1.12; P <0.001), and ANB° (-1.69°; 95% CI, -2.44 to -0.94; P <0.001) compared with Invisalign. MSPI resulted in a significantly larger increase in SNB° (0.94°; 95% CI, 0.23-1.65; P = 0.01) and point-Pog projection (2.45 mm; 95% CI, 1.12-3.77; P = 0.001). Compared with MSPI, Invisalign had a significantly greater increase in the distance of maxillary (1.05 mm; 95% CI, 0.38-1.72; P = 0.003) and mandibular (0.9 mm; 95% CI, 0.19-1.60; P = 0.01) incisal edges relative to their apical bases, with borderline greater lingual tipping of only the maxillary incisors (2.82°; 95% CI, -0.44 to 6.09; P = 0.09). Appliance type and initial overbite were significant final overbite predictors across all models. However, this difference was only evident in male patients (males [1.65; 95% CI, 0.99-2.32; P <0.001]; female [-0.04; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.44; P = 0.87]).
CONCLUSIONS: Both appliances effectively improve overbite. MSPI applied the correction via molar intrusion and counterclockwise mandibular autorotation, whereas Invisalign via maxillary and mandibular incisor extrusion.
METHODS: Twenty-nine patients treated with Invisalign and 24 with MSPI combined with full-fixed orthodontic appliances were included from 5 orthodontic practices. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalometric measurements were included as outcomes. Comparisons across groups and identification of final overbite predictors were assessed with regression modeling and machine learning techniques.
RESULTS: MSPI induced significantly greater maxillary molar intrusion (1.5 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-2.17; P <0.001), with subsequent reduction of anterior face height (ANS-Me) (-2.77 mm; 95% CI, -3.64 to -1.91; P <0.001), Mp-SN° (-1.95°; 95% CI, -2.77 to -1.12; P <0.001), and ANB° (-1.69°; 95% CI, -2.44 to -0.94; P <0.001) compared with Invisalign. MSPI resulted in a significantly larger increase in SNB° (0.94°; 95% CI, 0.23-1.65; P = 0.01) and point-Pog projection (2.45 mm; 95% CI, 1.12-3.77; P = 0.001). Compared with MSPI, Invisalign had a significantly greater increase in the distance of maxillary (1.05 mm; 95% CI, 0.38-1.72; P = 0.003) and mandibular (0.9 mm; 95% CI, 0.19-1.60; P = 0.01) incisal edges relative to their apical bases, with borderline greater lingual tipping of only the maxillary incisors (2.82°; 95% CI, -0.44 to 6.09; P = 0.09). Appliance type and initial overbite were significant final overbite predictors across all models. However, this difference was only evident in male patients (males [1.65; 95% CI, 0.99-2.32; P <0.001]; female [-0.04; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.44; P = 0.87]).
CONCLUSIONS: Both appliances effectively improve overbite. MSPI applied the correction via molar intrusion and counterclockwise mandibular autorotation, whereas Invisalign via maxillary and mandibular incisor extrusion.