Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2020
Banded versus modified appliances for anchorage during maxillary protraction.
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.
Liu Chunyan, Qiao Xing, Zhang Shilong, Ma Wensheng, Wang Wen, Ge Xiaolei, Hu Xiaoying, Kang Wenjing, Lu Haiyan
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare banded versus modified appliances for anchorage during maxillary protraction in Class III malocclusions.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The sample size consisted of 40 growing patients with Class III maxillary deficiency: 20 patients received maxillary protraction with a modified appliance and 20 patients with a banded appliance. Pre- and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs of all subjects were obtained and analyzed. The paired t‑test and Wilcoxon ranks test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: The patients in the modified appliance group needed fewer appointments and shorter treatment time than those in the banded appliance group. The modified appliance was superior to the banded appliance with respect to simple structure, comfort, retention, and convenience in maintaining oral hygiene. The modified appliance was as effective as the banded appliance in correcting the Class III malocclusion. However, a greater increase was found in mandibular plane angle, anterior facial height, total facial height, mesialization of maxillary molars, and proclination of maxillary incisors in the banded appliance group compared with that in the modified appliance group (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed modified appliance may be a promising approach in treating growing Class III patients with maxillary deficiency, which could decrease treatment time, increase treatment efficiency, and reduce anchorage loss.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The sample size consisted of 40 growing patients with Class III maxillary deficiency: 20 patients received maxillary protraction with a modified appliance and 20 patients with a banded appliance. Pre- and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs of all subjects were obtained and analyzed. The paired t‑test and Wilcoxon ranks test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: The patients in the modified appliance group needed fewer appointments and shorter treatment time than those in the banded appliance group. The modified appliance was superior to the banded appliance with respect to simple structure, comfort, retention, and convenience in maintaining oral hygiene. The modified appliance was as effective as the banded appliance in correcting the Class III malocclusion. However, a greater increase was found in mandibular plane angle, anterior facial height, total facial height, mesialization of maxillary molars, and proclination of maxillary incisors in the banded appliance group compared with that in the modified appliance group (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed modified appliance may be a promising approach in treating growing Class III patients with maxillary deficiency, which could decrease treatment time, increase treatment efficiency, and reduce anchorage loss.