Progress in orthodontics · 2020
A prospective clinical trial of the effects produced by the extrusion arch in the treatment of anterior open bite.
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.
de Brito Vasconcelos Juliana, de Almeida-Pedrin Renata Rodrigues, Poleti Thais Maria Freire Fernandes, Oltramari Paula, de Castro Conti Ana Cláudia Ferreira, Bicheline Mirchel Henrique Bertola, Lindauer Steven J, de Almeida Marcio Rodrigues
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate the maxillary dentition effects of the extrusion arch for anterior open bite (AOB) correction in mixed dentition patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen subjects with an initial mean age of 9.17 ± 1.03 years presenting with dentoalveolar AOB (mean - 1.28 ± 1.46 mm) and normal facial pattern (FMA = 25.76°) were treated with an extrusion arch. The mean treatment period was 7.79 ± 2.58 months. Lateral cephalograms and dental models were taken before (T0) and after the correction of AOB (T1). Data were analyzed using paired t test to evaluate differences between T0 and T1. For all tests, a significance level of P < .05 was used.
RESULTS: All patients achieved positive overbite at T1, with a mean increase of 3.07 mm. The maxillary incisors extruded 1.94 mm. Retroclination of the maxillary incisors (- 6.15°) and an increase in the interincisal angle (5.57°) were observed. There was a significant decrease in the distance between the incisal edge of the maxillary incisors and the molars (- 2.21 mm). There was significant mesial tipping of the maxillary molar (- 11.49°). Significant reductions of overjet (- 1.65 mm), arch perimeter (- 3.02 mm), and arch length (- 2.23 mm) were noted. The transverse maxillary intermolar distance did not change significantly.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a maxillary extrusion arch was effective in the treatment of AOB. Overbite increased due to incisor extrusion, as well as retroinclination and overjet reduction. However, side effects, such as mesial molar tipping and decreases in arch perimeter and length might occur.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen subjects with an initial mean age of 9.17 ± 1.03 years presenting with dentoalveolar AOB (mean - 1.28 ± 1.46 mm) and normal facial pattern (FMA = 25.76°) were treated with an extrusion arch. The mean treatment period was 7.79 ± 2.58 months. Lateral cephalograms and dental models were taken before (T0) and after the correction of AOB (T1). Data were analyzed using paired t test to evaluate differences between T0 and T1. For all tests, a significance level of P < .05 was used.
RESULTS: All patients achieved positive overbite at T1, with a mean increase of 3.07 mm. The maxillary incisors extruded 1.94 mm. Retroclination of the maxillary incisors (- 6.15°) and an increase in the interincisal angle (5.57°) were observed. There was a significant decrease in the distance between the incisal edge of the maxillary incisors and the molars (- 2.21 mm). There was significant mesial tipping of the maxillary molar (- 11.49°). Significant reductions of overjet (- 1.65 mm), arch perimeter (- 3.02 mm), and arch length (- 2.23 mm) were noted. The transverse maxillary intermolar distance did not change significantly.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a maxillary extrusion arch was effective in the treatment of AOB. Overbite increased due to incisor extrusion, as well as retroinclination and overjet reduction. However, side effects, such as mesial molar tipping and decreases in arch perimeter and length might occur.