Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2019
Effects of Class II division 1 malocclusion treatment with three types of fixed functional appliances.
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.
Brito Deborah Brindeiro de Araújo, Henriques José Fernando Castanha, Fiedler Camilla Foncatti, Janson Guilherme
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at comparing the dentoskeletal changes in patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion, treated with three types of fixed functional appliances.
METHODS: A sample comprising 95 patients with the same malocclusion, retrospectively selected, and divided into four groups, was used: G1 consisted of 25 patients (mean age 12.77 ± 1.24 years) treated with Jasper Jumper appliance; G2, with 25 patients (mean age 12.58 ± 1.65 years) treated with the Herbst appliance; G3, with 23 patients (mean age 12.37 ± 1.72 years) treated with the Mandibular Protraction Appliance (MPA); and a Control Group (CG) comprised of 22 untreated subjects (mean age 12.66 ± 1.12 years). Intergroup comparison was performed with ANOVA, followed by Tukey test.
RESULTS: The Jasper Jumper and the Herbst group showed significantly greater maxillary anterior displacement restriction. The Jasper Jumper demonstrated significantly greater increase in the mandibular plane angle, as compared to the control group. The MPA group demonstrated significantly greater palatal inclination of the maxillary incisors. Vertical development of the maxillary molars was significantly greater in the Herbst group.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite some intergroup differences in the amount of dentoskeletal changes, the appliances were effective in correcting the main features of Class II malocclusions.
METHODS: A sample comprising 95 patients with the same malocclusion, retrospectively selected, and divided into four groups, was used: G1 consisted of 25 patients (mean age 12.77 ± 1.24 years) treated with Jasper Jumper appliance; G2, with 25 patients (mean age 12.58 ± 1.65 years) treated with the Herbst appliance; G3, with 23 patients (mean age 12.37 ± 1.72 years) treated with the Mandibular Protraction Appliance (MPA); and a Control Group (CG) comprised of 22 untreated subjects (mean age 12.66 ± 1.12 years). Intergroup comparison was performed with ANOVA, followed by Tukey test.
RESULTS: The Jasper Jumper and the Herbst group showed significantly greater maxillary anterior displacement restriction. The Jasper Jumper demonstrated significantly greater increase in the mandibular plane angle, as compared to the control group. The MPA group demonstrated significantly greater palatal inclination of the maxillary incisors. Vertical development of the maxillary molars was significantly greater in the Herbst group.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite some intergroup differences in the amount of dentoskeletal changes, the appliances were effective in correcting the main features of Class II malocclusions.