Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2021
Treatment of mild Class II malocclusion in growing patients with clear aligners versus fixed multibracket therapy: A retrospective study.
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.
Dianiskova Simona, Rongo Roberto, Buono Raffaele, Franchi Lorenzo, Michelotti Ambra, D'Antò Vincenzo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the dental and skeletal effects of intermaxillary elastics on the correction of mild Angle's Class II division 1 malocclusion with clear aligner treatment (CA) versus fixed multibracket (FMB) in growing patients.
SETTINGS AND SAMPLE POPULATION: The study sample consisted of 49 consecutively patients (mean age ± SD 12.9 ± 1.7 years), 32 females and 17 males referred from the School of Orthodontics of the University of Bratislava Comenius (Slovakia). All patients were treated with a non-extraction orthodontic treatment, 25 with FMB and 24 with CA.
METHODS: The cephalometric analysis was performed at the beginning (T0) and the end of the treatment (T1). The t test for unpaired data was carried out to compare cephalometric values at T0 and changes at T1-T0 between the two groups. The level of significance was set as P < .0035.
RESULTS: The two groups showed no statistically significant differences (ANPg = -0.1°; P = .762) in the correction of the sagittal intermaxillary relation. The analysis of vertical skeletal changes showed no statistically significant effects on mandibular inclination (SN/MP = 0.1°; P = .840). The two treatments had a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in controlling the inclination of the lower incisors (L1/GoGn = 4.8°, CAG = -0.5°± 3.9°; FMB = 4.3°± 5.8°; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Class II elastics combined with CA and FMB produce a similar correction on sagittal discrepancies in growing patients. CA presented a better control in the proclination of the lower incisors. CA and elastics might be a good alternative in the correction of mild Class II malocclusion in cases where a proclination of lower incisors is unwanted.
SETTINGS AND SAMPLE POPULATION: The study sample consisted of 49 consecutively patients (mean age ± SD 12.9 ± 1.7 years), 32 females and 17 males referred from the School of Orthodontics of the University of Bratislava Comenius (Slovakia). All patients were treated with a non-extraction orthodontic treatment, 25 with FMB and 24 with CA.
METHODS: The cephalometric analysis was performed at the beginning (T0) and the end of the treatment (T1). The t test for unpaired data was carried out to compare cephalometric values at T0 and changes at T1-T0 between the two groups. The level of significance was set as P < .0035.
RESULTS: The two groups showed no statistically significant differences (ANPg = -0.1°; P = .762) in the correction of the sagittal intermaxillary relation. The analysis of vertical skeletal changes showed no statistically significant effects on mandibular inclination (SN/MP = 0.1°; P = .840). The two treatments had a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in controlling the inclination of the lower incisors (L1/GoGn = 4.8°, CAG = -0.5°± 3.9°; FMB = 4.3°± 5.8°; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Class II elastics combined with CA and FMB produce a similar correction on sagittal discrepancies in growing patients. CA presented a better control in the proclination of the lower incisors. CA and elastics might be a good alternative in the correction of mild Class II malocclusion in cases where a proclination of lower incisors is unwanted.