American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2016
Change in the vertical dimension of Class II Division 1 patients after use of cervical or high-pull headgear.
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.
Zervas Erin Dobbins, Galang-Boquiren Maria Therese S, Obrez Ales, Costa Viana Maria Grace, Oppermann Nelson, Sanchez Flavio, Romero Enrique Garcia, Kusnoto Budi
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The goals of this study were to compare the effects that cervical and high-pull headgear have on the vertical dimensions in Class II Division 1 patients during phase 1 treatment and to compare these effects with untreated predicted growth for the sample population.
METHODS: Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs of children who had undergone Class II Division 1 correction with cervical (n = 22) or high-pull headgear (n = 19) were analyzed for the measurements that describe the changes in the vertical component of growth and mandibular position. The groups were matched for age (mean, 9 ± 2.5 years), treatment time (mean, 14 months), malocclusion, and similar skeletal features. The groups were compared with each other and also with an untreated growth model.
RESULTS: Treatment with cervical headgear resulted in smaller increases in measurements that describe the vertical dimension than with high-pull headgear. Cervical headgear showed more favorable changes in mandibular growth that were statistically significant when compared with the untreated growth models.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the cervical headgear showed more control over the vertical dimension and produced more favorable changes in mandibular position by normalizing the occlusal plane. Compared with the untreated growth model, cervical headgear worked synergistically with growth to produce more optimal changes in mandibular position.
METHODS: Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs of children who had undergone Class II Division 1 correction with cervical (n = 22) or high-pull headgear (n = 19) were analyzed for the measurements that describe the changes in the vertical component of growth and mandibular position. The groups were matched for age (mean, 9 ± 2.5 years), treatment time (mean, 14 months), malocclusion, and similar skeletal features. The groups were compared with each other and also with an untreated growth model.
RESULTS: Treatment with cervical headgear resulted in smaller increases in measurements that describe the vertical dimension than with high-pull headgear. Cervical headgear showed more favorable changes in mandibular growth that were statistically significant when compared with the untreated growth models.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the cervical headgear showed more control over the vertical dimension and produced more favorable changes in mandibular position by normalizing the occlusal plane. Compared with the untreated growth model, cervical headgear worked synergistically with growth to produce more optimal changes in mandibular position.