European journal of orthodontics · 2018
Soft tissue treatment changes with fixed functional appliances and with maxillary premolar extraction in Class II division 1 malocclusion patients.
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.
Janson Guilherme, Castello Branco Nuria, Aliaga-Del Castillo Aron, Henriques José Fernando Castanha, de Morais Juliana Fernandes
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the soft tissue changes and post-treatment status after complete fixed functional appliance non-extraction and maxillary premolar extraction treatment in patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion.
MATERIALS/METHODS: The sample consisted of 96 lateral cephalograms of 48 patients, divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 23 patients treated with fixed functional appliance associated with fixed appliances, with initial and final mean ages of 12.71 and 15.16 years, respectively, mean treatment time of 2.44 years and initial mean overjet of 6.83 mm. Group 2 comprised 25 patients treated with extraction of two maxillary premolars with initial and final mean ages of 13.05 and 15.74 years, respectively, mean treatment time of 2.67 years and initial mean overjet of 7.01 mm. t-Tests were used to compare treatment changes and the final cephalometric statuses between the groups.
RESULTS: According to the results, there was no inter-group difference regarding the soft tissue changes and post-treatment status.
LIMITATIONS: The use of exclusively one type of fixed functional appliance in group 1 and performance of only one type of mechanics during space closure in group 2 were not always possible.
CONCLUSION: Late pubertal patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with fixed functional appliances associated with fixed appliances present similar soft tissue results as two-maxillary premolar extraction treatments.
MATERIALS/METHODS: The sample consisted of 96 lateral cephalograms of 48 patients, divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 23 patients treated with fixed functional appliance associated with fixed appliances, with initial and final mean ages of 12.71 and 15.16 years, respectively, mean treatment time of 2.44 years and initial mean overjet of 6.83 mm. Group 2 comprised 25 patients treated with extraction of two maxillary premolars with initial and final mean ages of 13.05 and 15.74 years, respectively, mean treatment time of 2.67 years and initial mean overjet of 7.01 mm. t-Tests were used to compare treatment changes and the final cephalometric statuses between the groups.
RESULTS: According to the results, there was no inter-group difference regarding the soft tissue changes and post-treatment status.
LIMITATIONS: The use of exclusively one type of fixed functional appliance in group 1 and performance of only one type of mechanics during space closure in group 2 were not always possible.
CONCLUSION: Late pubertal patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with fixed functional appliances associated with fixed appliances present similar soft tissue results as two-maxillary premolar extraction treatments.