The Angle orthodontist · 2020
Stability of maxillary interincisor diastema closure after extraction orthodontic treatment.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Carruitero Marcos J, Aliaga-Del Castillo Aron, Garib Daniela, Janson Guilherme
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the stability of maxillary interincisor diastema closure and the relationship between space relapse and interincisor diastema width, overjet, overbite, angulations between adjacent maxillary anterior teeth and presence of intermaxillary osseous cleft after orthodontic treatment with extractions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four individuals with a maxillary interincisor diastema pretreatment, treated with maxillary first premolar extractions were evaluated. Dental casts and panoramic radiographs taken at pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2), and posttreatment follow-up (T3) were assessed. Periapical radiographs at T1 and T2 were also evaluated. Diastema relapse was assumed when T3-T2 interincisor space change was greater than zero. Diastema relapse was considered clinically significant when it was at least 0.50 mm. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance followed by post hoc Tukey tests or Friedman followed by Wilcoxon tests. T-test or Mann-Whitney U-test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and multiple linear regression analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: No statistically significant relapse of maxillary interincisor diastemas was found. The percentage of clinically significant relapse of the maxillary interincisor diastemas was 27.78%. Specifically, for the interincisor midline diastema, it was 8.33%.
CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary interincisor diastema closure showed no statistically significant relapse after orthodontic treatment with premolar extractions. Clinically significant stability for maxillary interincisor diastema closure was 72.22% and, specifically, for interincisor midline diastema closure, it was 91.67%.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four individuals with a maxillary interincisor diastema pretreatment, treated with maxillary first premolar extractions were evaluated. Dental casts and panoramic radiographs taken at pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2), and posttreatment follow-up (T3) were assessed. Periapical radiographs at T1 and T2 were also evaluated. Diastema relapse was assumed when T3-T2 interincisor space change was greater than zero. Diastema relapse was considered clinically significant when it was at least 0.50 mm. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance followed by post hoc Tukey tests or Friedman followed by Wilcoxon tests. T-test or Mann-Whitney U-test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and multiple linear regression analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: No statistically significant relapse of maxillary interincisor diastemas was found. The percentage of clinically significant relapse of the maxillary interincisor diastemas was 27.78%. Specifically, for the interincisor midline diastema, it was 8.33%.
CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary interincisor diastema closure showed no statistically significant relapse after orthodontic treatment with premolar extractions. Clinically significant stability for maxillary interincisor diastema closure was 72.22% and, specifically, for interincisor midline diastema closure, it was 91.67%.