The journal of contemporary dental practice · 2017
Comparison of Complications in Removable Mandibular Acrylic Splint and Cantilever Herbst for Management of Class II Malocclusion: A Retrospective 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.
Kanuru R K, Bhasin Vinny, Khatri Amit, Dodda K K, Singh Era, Grover Shekhar
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Numerous appliances are present for the management of class II malocclusion. We have conducted a study to compare the clinical complications during treatment with either a removable mandibular acrylic splint (RMS) or with a cantilever Herbst (HC) appliance for the management of class II malocclusion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study consisted of records of 114 patients (61 males, 53 females), who were divided into two groups. Group I received RMS and group II received HC for the treatment of class II, Division 1 malocclusion. They were further subdivided according to the telescopic system used [Dentaurum type I or propulsor mandibular abzil (PMA)] and fixation mode (splint with crowns or GripTite bands). Patients' clinical records were assessed to identify clinical complications.
RESULTS: The results of the study showed that the incidence of complications during treatment in both groups was statistically nonsignificant. The complications with either crown or band were also statistically nonsignificant. The Dentaurum group showed more susceptibility to complications than the PMA group.
CONCLUSION: The PMA telescopic system is more efficient as compared with Dentaurum. Complication resulting from Herbst appliance is independent type of appliance used and mode of fixation.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Herbst appliance is the treatment of choice for class II malocclusion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study consisted of records of 114 patients (61 males, 53 females), who were divided into two groups. Group I received RMS and group II received HC for the treatment of class II, Division 1 malocclusion. They were further subdivided according to the telescopic system used [Dentaurum type I or propulsor mandibular abzil (PMA)] and fixation mode (splint with crowns or GripTite bands). Patients' clinical records were assessed to identify clinical complications.
RESULTS: The results of the study showed that the incidence of complications during treatment in both groups was statistically nonsignificant. The complications with either crown or band were also statistically nonsignificant. The Dentaurum group showed more susceptibility to complications than the PMA group.
CONCLUSION: The PMA telescopic system is more efficient as compared with Dentaurum. Complication resulting from Herbst appliance is independent type of appliance used and mode of fixation.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Herbst appliance is the treatment of choice for class II malocclusion.