American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2017
Assessment of upper airway size after orthopedic treatment for maxillary protrusion or mandibular retrusion.
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.
Aksu Muge, Gorucu-Coskuner Hande, Taner Tulin
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this retrospective study was to find out whether different Class II treatments would affect the airway sizes of patients having maxillary protrusion or mandibular retrusion.
METHODS: The study sample comprised 57 Class II patients whose upper airway sizes were not significantly different at the start of treatment and whose sagittal skeletal jaw relationships showed that they had maxillary protrusion or mandibular retrusion. Twenty-two of them were treated with cervical headgear, 16 with activator, and 19 were selected as a control. Lateral cephalograms at the start of treatment and the end of orthopedic treatment were assessed. The intragroup comparisons were performed by using the paired-samples t test, and intergroup comparisons of the skeletal features and upper airways were performed with 1-way analysis of variance, with the Tukey test as a second step, at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: The ANB angle decreased significantly in the treatment groups. The middle airway space and the SNB angle were significantly increased after the activator therapy (P < 0.05). The SNB angle increased and SN-1 decreased in the mandibular retrusion group when compared with both maxillary protrusion and control groups. No statistically significant difference between the maxillary protrusion and the mandibular retrusion groups was found regarding the upper airway sizes after cervical headgear or activator treatments, respectively (P > 0.05). The only significant differences observed in airway variables were at the middle airway space of the activator and control groups with an increase of 1.6 ± 2.5 mm and a decrease of 1.5 ± 2.3 mm, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Orthopedic treatment with either cervical headgear or activator did not result in different upper airway changes, but activator treatment resulted in increased middle airway space with regard to the Class II control group.
METHODS: The study sample comprised 57 Class II patients whose upper airway sizes were not significantly different at the start of treatment and whose sagittal skeletal jaw relationships showed that they had maxillary protrusion or mandibular retrusion. Twenty-two of them were treated with cervical headgear, 16 with activator, and 19 were selected as a control. Lateral cephalograms at the start of treatment and the end of orthopedic treatment were assessed. The intragroup comparisons were performed by using the paired-samples t test, and intergroup comparisons of the skeletal features and upper airways were performed with 1-way analysis of variance, with the Tukey test as a second step, at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: The ANB angle decreased significantly in the treatment groups. The middle airway space and the SNB angle were significantly increased after the activator therapy (P < 0.05). The SNB angle increased and SN-1 decreased in the mandibular retrusion group when compared with both maxillary protrusion and control groups. No statistically significant difference between the maxillary protrusion and the mandibular retrusion groups was found regarding the upper airway sizes after cervical headgear or activator treatments, respectively (P > 0.05). The only significant differences observed in airway variables were at the middle airway space of the activator and control groups with an increase of 1.6 ± 2.5 mm and a decrease of 1.5 ± 2.3 mm, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Orthopedic treatment with either cervical headgear or activator did not result in different upper airway changes, but activator treatment resulted in increased middle airway space with regard to the Class II control group.