Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2024
Third molar angulation and retromolar space after functional orthodontic treatment : Evaluation of panoramic radiographs after monoblock or Herbst appliance.
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.
Gümüş Esra Bolat, Esenlik Elçin, Kayafoğlu Göksu Emek, Yıldırım Mustafa
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this respectively cohort study was to evaluate the lower second and third molars and canine angulations, retromolar space and occlusal relationships after functional orthodontic treatments with the monoblock or Herbst appliance using panoramic radiographs.
METHODS: Pre- and posttreatment cephalometric and panoramic radiographs of 133 patients (mean age 13.89 ± 1.14 years) treated non-extraction with monoblock (n: 44), Herbst (n: 45) and fixed orthodontic appliances (control group; n: 44) were included to the study. Dental and skeletal measurements were performed on cephalometric radiographs. The angle between the third and second molars, and canines with the lower border of the mandible and the occlusal plane, gonial angle, the angle between the third and second molars and the retromolar space width were assessed on pre- and posttreatment panoramic radiographs. Paired and independent t tests were used for the statistical analysis of the data for intragroup and intergroup comparisons.
RESULTS: Functional treatment with both the monoblock and the Herbst appliances resulted in improvement of skeletal class II relationships. Retromolar space significantly increased in the functional appliance groups compared to the control group (p ≤ 0.001), but improvement of the angulations of posterior teeth was significant only in the monoblock group (p ≤ 0.001).
CONCLUSION: While both the Herbst and monoblock appliances led to an increase in retromolar space, monoblock treatment resulted in more favorable angulation of the third molars compared to the Herbst treatment.
METHODS: Pre- and posttreatment cephalometric and panoramic radiographs of 133 patients (mean age 13.89 ± 1.14 years) treated non-extraction with monoblock (n: 44), Herbst (n: 45) and fixed orthodontic appliances (control group; n: 44) were included to the study. Dental and skeletal measurements were performed on cephalometric radiographs. The angle between the third and second molars, and canines with the lower border of the mandible and the occlusal plane, gonial angle, the angle between the third and second molars and the retromolar space width were assessed on pre- and posttreatment panoramic radiographs. Paired and independent t tests were used for the statistical analysis of the data for intragroup and intergroup comparisons.
RESULTS: Functional treatment with both the monoblock and the Herbst appliances resulted in improvement of skeletal class II relationships. Retromolar space significantly increased in the functional appliance groups compared to the control group (p ≤ 0.001), but improvement of the angulations of posterior teeth was significant only in the monoblock group (p ≤ 0.001).
CONCLUSION: While both the Herbst and monoblock appliances led to an increase in retromolar space, monoblock treatment resulted in more favorable angulation of the third molars compared to the Herbst treatment.