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
Dehiscence and fenestration in patients with Class I and Class II Division 1 malocclusion assessed with cone-beam computed tomography.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Evangelista Karine, Vasconcelos Karla de Faria, Bumann Axel, Hirsch Edgar, Nitka Margarita, Silva Maria Alves Garcia
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the presence of alveolar defects (dehiscence and fenestration) in patients with Class I and Class II Division 1 malocclusions and different facial types.
METHODS: Seventy-nine Class I and 80 Class II patients with no previous orthodontic treatment were evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography. The sample included 4319 teeth. All teeth were analyzed by 2 examiners who evaluated sectional images in axial and cross-sectional views to check for the presence or absence of dehiscence and fenestration on the buccal and lingual surfaces.
RESULTS: Dehiscence was associated with 51.09% of all teeth, and fenestration with 36.51%. The Class I malocclusion patients had a greater prevalence of dehiscence: 35% higher than those with Class II Division 1 malocclusion (P <0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the facial types.
CONCLUSIONS: Alveolar defects are a common finding before orthodontic treatment, especially in Class I patients, but they are not related to the facial types.
METHODS: Seventy-nine Class I and 80 Class II patients with no previous orthodontic treatment were evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography. The sample included 4319 teeth. All teeth were analyzed by 2 examiners who evaluated sectional images in axial and cross-sectional views to check for the presence or absence of dehiscence and fenestration on the buccal and lingual surfaces.
RESULTS: Dehiscence was associated with 51.09% of all teeth, and fenestration with 36.51%. The Class I malocclusion patients had a greater prevalence of dehiscence: 35% higher than those with Class II Division 1 malocclusion (P <0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the facial types.
CONCLUSIONS: Alveolar defects are a common finding before orthodontic treatment, especially in Class I patients, but they are not related to the facial types.