The Angle orthodontist · 2017
Effects of skeletally anchored Class II elastics: A pilot study and new approach for treating Class II malocclusion.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Ozbilek Selin, Gungor Ahmet Yalcin, Celik Salih
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of skeletally anchored Class II elastics and compare them with a matched control group treated by a monobloc appliance for the correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients (6 girls, 6 boys) were randomly divided into two groups. In the elastics group, six patients (12.9 ± 1.5 years of age; 3 boys, 3 girls) were treated with skeletally anchored Class II elastics. Two miniplates were placed bilaterally at the ramus of the mandible and the other two miniplates were placed at the aperture piriformis area of the maxilla. In the monobloc group (3 boys and 3 girls; mean age, 12.3 ± 1.6 years), patients used the monobloc appliance. The changes observed in each phase of treatment were evaluated using the Wilcoxon matched-pair sign test. Intergroup comparisons at the initial phase of treatment were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: There were statistically significant group differences in Co-Gn, B-VRL, U1-PP, U1-VRL, Ls-VRL, with significant increases in these parameters in the elastics group (P < .05). The mandibular incisors were protruded in the monobloc group (5.45 ± 1.23°), whereas they were retruded in the elastics group (-3.01 ± 1.66°; P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: The undesirable dentoalveolar effects of the monobloc appliance were eliminated by using miniplate anchorage. Favorable skeletal outcomes can be achieved by skeletal anchorage therapies which could be an alternative to treat skeletal Class II patients with mandibular deficiency.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients (6 girls, 6 boys) were randomly divided into two groups. In the elastics group, six patients (12.9 ± 1.5 years of age; 3 boys, 3 girls) were treated with skeletally anchored Class II elastics. Two miniplates were placed bilaterally at the ramus of the mandible and the other two miniplates were placed at the aperture piriformis area of the maxilla. In the monobloc group (3 boys and 3 girls; mean age, 12.3 ± 1.6 years), patients used the monobloc appliance. The changes observed in each phase of treatment were evaluated using the Wilcoxon matched-pair sign test. Intergroup comparisons at the initial phase of treatment were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: There were statistically significant group differences in Co-Gn, B-VRL, U1-PP, U1-VRL, Ls-VRL, with significant increases in these parameters in the elastics group (P < .05). The mandibular incisors were protruded in the monobloc group (5.45 ± 1.23°), whereas they were retruded in the elastics group (-3.01 ± 1.66°; P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: The undesirable dentoalveolar effects of the monobloc appliance were eliminated by using miniplate anchorage. Favorable skeletal outcomes can be achieved by skeletal anchorage therapies which could be an alternative to treat skeletal Class II patients with mandibular deficiency.