Comparison of 1-year follow-up results of Forsus, headgear, and extraction treatment in Class II malocclusion.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Pub Date : 2024-12-10 DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.10.011
Çağrı Yeşildağ, Fundagül Bilgiç Zortuk
{"title":"Comparison of 1-year follow-up results of Forsus, headgear, and extraction treatment in Class II malocclusion.","authors":"Çağrı Yeşildağ, Fundagül Bilgiç Zortuk","doi":"10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.10.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This cross-sectional case-control observational study aimed to use lateral cephalometric radiographs to examine the 1-year follow-up results of 3 different treatment methods during Class II correction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors evaluated the lateral cephalometric records of patients treated with the Forsus fatigue-resistant device (group 1, n = 28), cervical headgears (CHG; group 2, n = 28), and maxillary first premolar extraction with fixed orthodontic appliances (group 3, n = 28). Each group was followed at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 1-year posttreatment. The data obtained were analyzed using the 1-way analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At posttreatment, the ANB angle decreased significantly (P = 0.001) in the CHG group compared with the Forsus and extraction groups. The lower and upper facial heights of the CHG group were significantly increased (P <0.001) at posttreatment compared with the other groups. The mandibular incisor protrusion in the Forsus group was significantly higher (P = 0.005) than in the extraction patients, and extrusion of the mandibular incisors was significantly higher (P = 0.002) in the CHG group than in the Forsus group at posttreatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All 3 methods were effective in correcting Class II malocclusion, mainly at the dentoalveolar level, but some amount of relapses occurred after 1-year of follow-up. Distance of mandibular incisors and the mandibular plane changed significantly, increasing in CHG and extraction groups after 1-year of follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":50806,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.10.011","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This cross-sectional case-control observational study aimed to use lateral cephalometric radiographs to examine the 1-year follow-up results of 3 different treatment methods during Class II correction.

Methods: The authors evaluated the lateral cephalometric records of patients treated with the Forsus fatigue-resistant device (group 1, n = 28), cervical headgears (CHG; group 2, n = 28), and maxillary first premolar extraction with fixed orthodontic appliances (group 3, n = 28). Each group was followed at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 1-year posttreatment. The data obtained were analyzed using the 1-way analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis methods.

Results: At posttreatment, the ANB angle decreased significantly (P = 0.001) in the CHG group compared with the Forsus and extraction groups. The lower and upper facial heights of the CHG group were significantly increased (P <0.001) at posttreatment compared with the other groups. The mandibular incisor protrusion in the Forsus group was significantly higher (P = 0.005) than in the extraction patients, and extrusion of the mandibular incisors was significantly higher (P = 0.002) in the CHG group than in the Forsus group at posttreatment.

Conclusions: All 3 methods were effective in correcting Class II malocclusion, mainly at the dentoalveolar level, but some amount of relapses occurred after 1-year of follow-up. Distance of mandibular incisors and the mandibular plane changed significantly, increasing in CHG and extraction groups after 1-year of follow-up.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
II类错牙合1年随访结果比较:Forsus、headgear、拔牙治疗。
简介:本横断面病例对照观察性研究旨在使用侧位头颅x线片检查3种不同治疗方法在II类矫正期间1年的随访结果。方法:作者评估了使用Forsus抗疲劳装置(1组,n = 28)、颈椎头套(CHG;第2组,n = 28),第3组,n = 28)。各组分别于治疗前、治疗后及治疗后1年随访。所得数据采用单因素方差分析和Kruskal-Wallis方法进行分析。结果:治疗后,CHG组ANB角度较Forsus组和提取物组明显降低(P = 0.001)。结论:3种方法均能有效矫正ⅱ类错颌,且以牙槽牙面矫正为主,但随访1年后出现一定程度的复发。随访1年后,CHG组和拔牙组的下颌切牙距离和下颌平面变化明显,且增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
13.30%
发文量
432
审稿时长
66 days
期刊介绍: Published for more than 100 years, the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics remains the leading orthodontic resource. It is the official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, the American Board of Orthodontics, and the College of Diplomates of the American Board of Orthodontics. Each month its readers have access to original peer-reviewed articles that examine all phases of orthodontic treatment. Illustrated throughout, the publication includes tables, color photographs, and statistical data. Coverage includes successful diagnostic procedures, imaging techniques, bracket and archwire materials, extraction and impaction concerns, orthognathic surgery, TMJ disorders, removable appliances, and adult therapy.
期刊最新文献
All eyes are on us. Assessment of deep learning technique for fully automated mandibular segmentation. Author's response. Author's response. Author's response.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1