The Angle orthodontist · 2013
A prospective controlled evaluation of Class II division 1 malocclusions treated with fixed lingual mandibular growth modificator.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Alali Osama H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the net dentofacial effects of the fixed lingual mandibular growth modificator (FLMGM).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample comprised 38 patients with Class II/1 malocclusion and retrognathic mandible. All were in the pubertal growth spurt. Whereas FLMGM was applied to the treatment group (n=21, mean age=13.2 years), no treatment was performed on the control group (n=17, mean age=12.5 years). Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes were assessed on digital lateral cephalograms obtained at the beginning and end of the treatment/observation period of 8 months. Paired and independent t-tests were used to assess the differences within and between groups.
RESULTS: Maxillary growth was not affected by FLMGM treatment, which resulted in a significant overjet reduction of 4.1 mm, an increase in total mandibular length (Co-Gn) of 2.3 mm, chin advancement of 1.6°, and upper incisor retroclination of 4.0°. A reduction of 2.4° in ANB was largely due to an increase of 1.8° in SNB. Favorably, the lower incisors were obviously retroclined by 4.5°. The changes in the vertical skeletal relationships were negligible.
CONCLUSION: FLMGM was effective in treating growing Class II/1 patients and produced favorable dentofacial effects, with the matched untreated sample showing minimal changes. Lower incisor retroclination was a benefit of FLMGM treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample comprised 38 patients with Class II/1 malocclusion and retrognathic mandible. All were in the pubertal growth spurt. Whereas FLMGM was applied to the treatment group (n=21, mean age=13.2 years), no treatment was performed on the control group (n=17, mean age=12.5 years). Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes were assessed on digital lateral cephalograms obtained at the beginning and end of the treatment/observation period of 8 months. Paired and independent t-tests were used to assess the differences within and between groups.
RESULTS: Maxillary growth was not affected by FLMGM treatment, which resulted in a significant overjet reduction of 4.1 mm, an increase in total mandibular length (Co-Gn) of 2.3 mm, chin advancement of 1.6°, and upper incisor retroclination of 4.0°. A reduction of 2.4° in ANB was largely due to an increase of 1.8° in SNB. Favorably, the lower incisors were obviously retroclined by 4.5°. The changes in the vertical skeletal relationships were negligible.
CONCLUSION: FLMGM was effective in treating growing Class II/1 patients and produced favorable dentofacial effects, with the matched untreated sample showing minimal changes. Lower incisor retroclination was a benefit of FLMGM treatment.