Literature DB >> 21992530

Prediction of lower incisor proclination during Xbow treatment based on initial cephalometric variables.

Tehnia Aziz1, Usama Nassar, Carlos Flores-Mir.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To predict lower incisor proclination from initial cephalometric values in Class II division 1 patients treated in phase I with the Xbow appliance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred forty-nine mild to moderate Class II division 1 patients treated with the Xbow appliance as a phase I treatment were considered. Patients were in late mixed dentition or early permanent dentition. Commonly used cephalometric variables at T1 (before treatment) were used to predict lower incisor proclination after Xbow treatment (T2). A principal component analysis (PCA) was performed. The four extracted PCA components were skeletal component, incisal distance, anterior facial projection, and maxillo-mandibular relation. Thereafter, a multiple linear regression analysis (MLRA) was performed using the four extracted PCA components at T1 as predictor variables, and lower incisor inclination relative to the mandibular plane (L1-MP) at T2 as the dependent variable.
RESULTS: The mean L1-MP at T1 was 95.46 degrees and the mean L1-MP at T2 was 98.51 degrees, resulting in a mean difference of 3.04 degrees. Only incisal distance and maxillo-mandibular relation PCA components had significance (P < .05) according to the MLRA. The overall model gave an adjusted R2 value (coefficient of determination) of 0.091.
CONCLUSION: The best prediction model could account for only 9% of the total variability. Using common cephalometric variables at T1, average lower incisor proclination from Xbow treatment cannot be predicted in a clinically meaningful way.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21992530      PMCID: PMC8865830          DOI: 10.2319/072311-465.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  13 in total

1.  Treatment and posttreatment effects of acrylic splint Herbst appliance therapy.

Authors:  L Franchi; T Baccetti; J A McNamara
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.650

2.  Effects of headgear Herbst and mandibular step-by-step advancement versus conventional Herbst appliance and maximal jumping of the mandible.

Authors:  Xi Du; Urban Hägg; A Bakr M Rabie
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  Immediate skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crown- or banded type Herbst appliance on Class II division 1 malocclusion.

Authors:  Gregory A Barnett; Duncan W Higgins; Paul W Major; Carlos Flores-Mir
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Short-term skeletal and dental effects of the Xbow appliance as measured on lateral cephalograms.

Authors:  Carlos Flores-Mir; Gregory Barnett; Duncan W Higgins; Giseon Heo; Paul W Major
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  "Effective condylar growth" and chin position changes in Herbst treatment: a cephalometric roentgenographic long-term study.

Authors:  H Pancherz; S Ruf; P Kohlhas
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 6.  A systematic review of the association between appliance-induced labial movement of mandibular incisors and gingival recession.

Authors:  Tehnia Aziz; Carlos Flores-Mir
Journal:  Aust Orthod J       Date:  2011-05

Review 7.  Orthodontic therapy and gingival recession: a systematic review.

Authors:  I Joss-Vassalli; C Grebenstein; N Topouzelis; A Sculean; C Katsaros
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.826

8.  Long-term comparison of treatment outcome and stability of Class II patients treated with functional appliances versus bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Berger; Valmy Pangrazio-Kulbersh; Cameron George; Richard Kaczynski
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  Prevalence of malocclusions in the early mixed dentition and orthodontic treatment need.

Authors:  Eve Tausche; Olaf Luck; Winfried Harzer
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Lower incisor inclination changes during Xbow treatment according to vertical facial type.

Authors:  Carlos Flores-Mir; Arden Young; Amira Greiss; Matthew Woynorowski; James Peng
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.079

View more
  1 in total

1.  Incisor inclination changes produced by two compliance-free Class II correction protocols for the treatment of mild to moderate Class II malocclusions.

Authors:  Robert A Miller; Long Tieu; Carlos Flores-Mir
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 2.079

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.