Literature DB >> 28084515

Soft tissue effects of three different Class II/1-camouflage treatment strategies.

Ezgi Atik1, Bengisu Akarsu-Guven2, Ilken Kocadereli2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Aim of this retrospective study was to compare soft tissue effects of Class II treatments with the forsus fatigue resistant device (FRD), the pendulum appliance, and the extraction of two maxillary premolars, all of which were combined with pre-adjusted fixed appliances. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The sample of 54 patients with Class II malocclusions was divided in three groups: group I patients (mean age = 15.91 years) were treated with the FRD concurrently used with fixed appliances; group II patients (mean age = 16.08 years) were treated with the pendulum appliance combined with a Nance and headgear followed by fixed appliances; and group III patients (mean age = 19.04 years) were treated with the extraction of two maxillary premolars with miniscrew anchorage. Soft tissue and dentoskeletal parameters were measured on pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalograms. The changes from T1 to T2 were compared between the groups using Kruskal-Wallis test, and treatment differences were evaluated with the Wilcoxon test at p < 0.05. RESULT: Soft tissue measurement changes related to the upper and lower lips were significantly greater in group II than in group III (p < 0.05). Upper incisor measurement changes were significantly different between groups II and III. Lower incisor measurement changes were significantly different between groups I and III and groups II and III (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Pendulum and extraction treatment groups showed significant differences in relation with the upper and lower lip positional changes, which were significantly greater in the pendulum group. Treatment time with the extraction treatment was statistically shorter than with the nonextraction protocols.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Class II; Forsus; Pendulum; Premolar extraction; Treatment time

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28084515     DOI: 10.1007/s00056-016-0066-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orofac Orthop        ISSN: 1434-5293            Impact factor:   1.938


  36 in total

1.  Effects of extraction and nonextraction treatment on class I and class II subjects.

Authors:  Faruk Ayhan Basciftci; Serdar Usumez
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Herbst treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions in retrognathic and prognathic facial types.

Authors:  Niko Bock; Hans Pancherz
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Perception of facial esthetics: a comparison of similar class II cases treated with attempted growth modification or later orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  Tracey L Shell; Michael G Woods
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Effects of the pendulum appliance, cervical headgear, and 2 premolar extractions followed by fixed appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion.

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

5.  A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I--The hard tissues.

Authors:  H M Illing; D O Morris; R T Lee
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Forsus Nitinol Flat Spring and Jasper Jumper corrections of Class II division 1 malocclusions.

Authors:  Seniz Karacay; Erol Akin; Huseyin Olmez; A Umit Gurton; Deniz Sagdic
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  Skeletal Class III oligodontia patient treated with titanium screw anchorage and orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  Shingo Kuroda; Yasuyo Sugawara; Kazuo Yamashita; Takamitsu Mano; Teruko Takano-Yamamoto
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.650

8.  Facial-profile attractiveness changes in adult patients treated with the Herbst appliance.

Authors:  J von Bremen; C Erbe; H Pancherz; S Ruf
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 1.938

9.  Treatment and posttreatment effects induced by the Forsus appliance: A controlled clinical study.

Authors:  Giorgio Cacciatore; Luis Tomas Huanca Ghislanzoni; Lisa Alvetro; Veronica Giuntini; Lorenzo Franchi
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Comparative evaluation of molar distalization therapy using pendulum and distal screw appliances.

Authors:  Alberto Caprioglio; Alessandra Cafagna; Mattia Fontana; Mauro Cozzani
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 1.372

View more
  1 in total

1.  Skeletal, Dental and Soft Tissue Cephalometric Changes after Orthodontic Treatment of Dental Class II Malocclusion with Maxillary First Molar or First Premolar Extractions.

Authors:  Johan Willem Booij; Marco Serafin; Rosamaria Fastuca; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Alberto Caprioglio
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 4.964

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.