The Angle orthodontist · 2018
Comparison of complications in the conventional telescopic Herbst rod and tube and Manni telescopic Herbst: A retrospective clinical study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Manni Antonio, Mutinelli Sabrina, Cerruto Carmen, Giraudo Paola, Romano Rachele, Cozzani Mauro
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence of clinical complications between two different telescopic Herbst systems: the conventional telescopic system, with traditional rod and tube (RMS), and the Manni telescopic Herbst appliance (MTH).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety subjects treated with RMS were compared to 89 patients treated with MTH. All of the complications that occurred were reported, and percentages of prevalence were calculated.
RESULTS: MTH showed a significantly lower percentage of reversible complications (that did not require appliance removal) when compared to the reversible complications during RMS treatment (20.2% vs 51.1%). No statistically significant differences were found between RMS and MTH regarding irreversible complications (that required appliance removal and full re-make). All of the irreversible complications occurred after reversible complications in the RMS group, while most of the irreversible complications in the MTH group occurred without any previous reversible complication.
CONCLUSIONS: MTH exhibited a smaller number of clinical complications during Class II skeletal malocclusion therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety subjects treated with RMS were compared to 89 patients treated with MTH. All of the complications that occurred were reported, and percentages of prevalence were calculated.
RESULTS: MTH showed a significantly lower percentage of reversible complications (that did not require appliance removal) when compared to the reversible complications during RMS treatment (20.2% vs 51.1%). No statistically significant differences were found between RMS and MTH regarding irreversible complications (that required appliance removal and full re-make). All of the irreversible complications occurred after reversible complications in the RMS group, while most of the irreversible complications in the MTH group occurred without any previous reversible complication.
CONCLUSIONS: MTH exhibited a smaller number of clinical complications during Class II skeletal malocclusion therapy.