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
Treatment effects of the light-force chincup.
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Barrett Aubrey A F, Baccetti Tiziano, McNamara James A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the light-force chincup appliance in correcting the skeletal and dentoalveolar components of Class III malocclusion compared with an untreated Class III control group.
METHODS: The treatment sample consisted of 26 patients (11 boys, 15 girls) treated with the light-force chincup (125-250 g). The mean age at the start of treatment in the chincup group was 8.5 years, with posttreatment cephalograms taken on average 2.6 years later. The control group consisted of 20 subjects. The mean age at the start of observation for the control group (6 boys, 14 girls) was 7.3 years, and the mean time of observation was 2.4 years. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed with a specific tracing regimen at the 2 time points for both groups. Treatment outcome were determined. The treatment group subsequently was subdivided into those treated simultaneously with a quad-helix appliance and those with the chincup only. Mann-Whitney U tests for independent samples were performed to evaluate the differences between the treated and untreated groups at both time points, the changes between the 2 time points, and the differences between the groups treated with the quad-helix and chincup, and the chincup only.
RESULTS: The chincup sample showed no significant skeletal changes in the mandible in either the vertical or horizontal direction, except for a slight decrease in SNB angle and an increase in ANB angle. There were significant dentoalveolar changes, particularly uprighting of the mandibular incisors. Significant positive Class III treatment outcomes were recorded in the quad-helix group, including a decrease in mandibular length of 1.9 mm compared with the chincup group.
CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than 50% of the subjects treated with the chincup had favorable clinical outcomes. Correction of the initial Class III malocclusion occurred through significant dentoalveolar changes. The light-force chincup did not produce orthopedic changes in the mandible. Maxillary expansion with a quad-helix might aid in the correction of the Class III malocclusion in conjunction with the chincup.
METHODS: The treatment sample consisted of 26 patients (11 boys, 15 girls) treated with the light-force chincup (125-250 g). The mean age at the start of treatment in the chincup group was 8.5 years, with posttreatment cephalograms taken on average 2.6 years later. The control group consisted of 20 subjects. The mean age at the start of observation for the control group (6 boys, 14 girls) was 7.3 years, and the mean time of observation was 2.4 years. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed with a specific tracing regimen at the 2 time points for both groups. Treatment outcome were determined. The treatment group subsequently was subdivided into those treated simultaneously with a quad-helix appliance and those with the chincup only. Mann-Whitney U tests for independent samples were performed to evaluate the differences between the treated and untreated groups at both time points, the changes between the 2 time points, and the differences between the groups treated with the quad-helix and chincup, and the chincup only.
RESULTS: The chincup sample showed no significant skeletal changes in the mandible in either the vertical or horizontal direction, except for a slight decrease in SNB angle and an increase in ANB angle. There were significant dentoalveolar changes, particularly uprighting of the mandibular incisors. Significant positive Class III treatment outcomes were recorded in the quad-helix group, including a decrease in mandibular length of 1.9 mm compared with the chincup group.
CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than 50% of the subjects treated with the chincup had favorable clinical outcomes. Correction of the initial Class III malocclusion occurred through significant dentoalveolar changes. The light-force chincup did not produce orthopedic changes in the mandible. Maxillary expansion with a quad-helix might aid in the correction of the Class III malocclusion in conjunction with the chincup.