Hatice Akinci Cansunar1, Tancan Uysal2. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Inonu University, Malatya, Turkey. 2. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey. tancan.uysal@ikc.edu.tr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of three different Class II treatment modalities followed by fixed orthodontic therapy, using the American Board of Orthodontics Model Grading System (ABO-MGS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a retrospective study, files of patients treated at postgraduate orthodontic clinics in different cities in Turkey was randomly selected. From 1684 posttreatment records, 669 patients were divided into three groups: 269 patients treated with extraction of two upper premolars, 198 patients treated with cervical headgear, and 202 patients treated with functional appliances. All the cases were evaluated by one researcher using ABO-MGS. The χ (2), Z test, and multivariate analysis of variance were used for statistical evaluation (p < 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the groups in buccolingual inclination, overjet, occlusal relationship, and root angulation. However, there were significant differences in alignment, marginal ridge height, occlusal contact, interproximal contact measurements, and overall MGS average scores. The mean treatment time between the extraction and functional appliance groups was significantly different (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: According to total ABO-MGS scores, headgear treatment had better results than functional appliances. The headgear group had better tooth alignment than the extraction group. Headgear treatment resulted in better occlusal contacts than the functional appliances and had lower average scores for interproximal contact measurements. Functional appliances had the worst average scores for marginal ridge height. Finally, the functional appliance group had the longest treatment times.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of three different Class II treatment modalities followed by fixed orthodontic therapy, using the American Board of Orthodontics Model Grading System (ABO-MGS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a retrospective study, files of patients treated at postgraduate orthodontic clinics in different cities in Turkey was randomly selected. From 1684 posttreatment records, 669 patients were divided into three groups: 269 patients treated with extraction of two upper premolars, 198 patients treated with cervical headgear, and 202 patients treated with functional appliances. All the cases were evaluated by one researcher using ABO-MGS. The χ (2), Z test, and multivariate analysis of variance were used for statistical evaluation (p < 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the groups in buccolingual inclination, overjet, occlusal relationship, and root angulation. However, there were significant differences in alignment, marginal ridge height, occlusal contact, interproximal contact measurements, and overall MGS average scores. The mean treatment time between the extraction and functional appliance groups was significantly different (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: According to total ABO-MGS scores, headgear treatment had better results than functional appliances. The headgear group had better tooth alignment than the extraction group. Headgear treatment resulted in better occlusal contacts than the functional appliances and had lower average scores for interproximal contact measurements. Functional appliances had the worst average scores for marginal ridge height. Finally, the functional appliance group had the longest treatment times.
Authors: Renata Rodrigues de Almeida-Pedrin; José Fernando Castanha Henriques; Renato Rodrigues de Almeida; Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida; James A McNamara Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: J S Casko; J L Vaden; V G Kokich; J Damone; R D James; T J Cangialosi; M L Riolo; S E Owens; E D Bills Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Guilherme Janson; João Tadeu Amim Graciano; José Fernando Castanha Henriques; Marcos Roberto de Freitas; Arnaldo Pinzan; Célia Regina Maio Pinzan-Vercelino Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: José Norberto de Oliveira; Renato Rodrigues de Almeida; Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida; José Norberto de Oliveira Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.650