American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2010
Effects of 2 types of facemasks on condylar position.
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.
El Hakan, Ciger Semra
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare Delaire and Grummons protraction facemasks with a new articulator system (Amtech MG1, American Technologies, Brazil) that can record condylar positions.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients treated with protraction facemask therapy were divided into 2 groups; 18 were treated with the Delaire facemask (DFM) and 16 with the Grummons facemask (GFM). The observation periods were 8.5 months for the DFM group and 10 months for the GFM group. Mandibular position indicator (MPI) recordings were taken with the new articulator system and evaluated before and after the protraction facemask therapies.
RESULTS: MPI recordings in the sagittal plane showed forward and downward movement from centric relation to maximum intercuspal position for both condyles at the beginning of treatment for most patients. After treatment, the discrepancy between centric relation and maximum intercuspation was less in the DFM group than in the GFM group. However, more compressive movement of the condyles through the glenoid fossa was observed in the DFM group.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the centric slide amount decreased more with the Delaire facemask compared with the Grummons facemask, patients treated with the Delaire facemask must be monitored for signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint disorder.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients treated with protraction facemask therapy were divided into 2 groups; 18 were treated with the Delaire facemask (DFM) and 16 with the Grummons facemask (GFM). The observation periods were 8.5 months for the DFM group and 10 months for the GFM group. Mandibular position indicator (MPI) recordings were taken with the new articulator system and evaluated before and after the protraction facemask therapies.
RESULTS: MPI recordings in the sagittal plane showed forward and downward movement from centric relation to maximum intercuspal position for both condyles at the beginning of treatment for most patients. After treatment, the discrepancy between centric relation and maximum intercuspation was less in the DFM group than in the GFM group. However, more compressive movement of the condyles through the glenoid fossa was observed in the DFM group.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the centric slide amount decreased more with the Delaire facemask compared with the Grummons facemask, patients treated with the Delaire facemask must be monitored for signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint disorder.