用客观分级系统评价舌牙和唇牙托架系统完成质量的研究:一所大学正畸诊所的回顾性研究

{"title":"用客观分级系统评价舌牙和唇牙托架系统完成质量的研究:一所大学正畸诊所的回顾性研究","authors":"","doi":"10.33140/jodh.03.02.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The purposes of this study were to determine the quality of final orthodontic treatment outcome and average treatment\ntime with fixed lingual brackets compared to labial brackets. Our hypothesis was that labial fixed appliances produce a higher quality\nof final treatment outcome, and a shorter average treatment time compared to lingual fixed appliances.\nMaterials and Methods: This was a retrospective study of matched pairs. Records of twenty subjects treated with lingual appliances\nwere included. These were paired with twenty patient records of subjects in fixed labial appliances with matching initial discrepancy\nindex (DI) (±5 points), Angle classification (within one-half step), number of extracted teeth, and age. Final models were scored\nusing the eight criteria of the American Board of Orthodontics’ Objective Grading System (OGS) and treatment time was recorded\nin number of days.\nResults: The mean difference in OGS scores between groups was 2.00 ± 8.89 points with a mean OGS score of the labial and lingual\nfixed appliance groups of 21.6 ± 7.45 and 19.6 ± 6.43, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.33). Lingual\nsubjects’ treatment time was an average of 4.25 ± 213.78 days less compared to their matched labial subjects. This difference was\nnot significant (p = 0.93). A statistically significant difference was found in the buccolingual inclination subcategory of the OGS. The\nmean difference in the buccolingual inclination score of lingual subjects was 1.90 ± 3.52 points higher than labial subjects (p = 0.03).\nConclusion: Lingual fixed appliance subjects had no significant difference in treatment time and / or treatment outcome as measured\nby OGS when paired with labial fixed appliance subjects, however, they did have significantly higher buccolingual inclination\ndiscrepancies.","PeriodicalId":15598,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dental health, oral disorders & therapy","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Study of the Quality of Finish of Lingual versus Labial Bracket Systems As Measured\\nBy the Objective Grading System: A Retrospective Study in a University Orthodontic\\nClinic\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.33140/jodh.03.02.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: The purposes of this study were to determine the quality of final orthodontic treatment outcome and average treatment\\ntime with fixed lingual brackets compared to labial brackets. Our hypothesis was that labial fixed appliances produce a higher quality\\nof final treatment outcome, and a shorter average treatment time compared to lingual fixed appliances.\\nMaterials and Methods: This was a retrospective study of matched pairs. Records of twenty subjects treated with lingual appliances\\nwere included. These were paired with twenty patient records of subjects in fixed labial appliances with matching initial discrepancy\\nindex (DI) (±5 points), Angle classification (within one-half step), number of extracted teeth, and age. Final models were scored\\nusing the eight criteria of the American Board of Orthodontics’ Objective Grading System (OGS) and treatment time was recorded\\nin number of days.\\nResults: The mean difference in OGS scores between groups was 2.00 ± 8.89 points with a mean OGS score of the labial and lingual\\nfixed appliance groups of 21.6 ± 7.45 and 19.6 ± 6.43, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.33). Lingual\\nsubjects’ treatment time was an average of 4.25 ± 213.78 days less compared to their matched labial subjects. This difference was\\nnot significant (p = 0.93). A statistically significant difference was found in the buccolingual inclination subcategory of the OGS. The\\nmean difference in the buccolingual inclination score of lingual subjects was 1.90 ± 3.52 points higher than labial subjects (p = 0.03).\\nConclusion: Lingual fixed appliance subjects had no significant difference in treatment time and / or treatment outcome as measured\\nby OGS when paired with labial fixed appliance subjects, however, they did have significantly higher buccolingual inclination\\ndiscrepancies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15598,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of dental health, oral disorders & therapy\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of dental health, oral disorders & therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33140/jodh.03.02.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dental health, oral disorders & therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33140/jodh.03.02.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是确定固定舌托与唇托的最终正畸治疗结果和平均治疗时间的质量。我们的假设是,与舌部固定矫治器相比,唇部固定矫治器产生更高质量的最终治疗结果,并且平均治疗时间更短。材料与方法:本研究为回顾性研究。包括20例使用舌矫治器治疗的患者的记录。这些数据与20例使用固定唇部矫治器的患者记录进行配对,初始差异指数(DI)(±5点)、角度分类(半步内)、拔牙数和年龄相匹配。采用美国正畸委员会客观评分系统(OGS)的8项标准对最终模型进行评分,并记录治疗时间(天数)。结果:两组OGS评分平均差异为2.00±8.89分,其中唇部固定器组OGS评分平均为21.6±7.45分,舌部固定器组OGS评分平均为19.6±6.43分。差异无统计学意义(p = 0.33)。语言组的治疗时间比唇部组平均少4.25±213.78天。差异无统计学意义(p = 0.93)。在OGS的颊语倾向亚类别中发现有统计学意义的差异。舌性组颊舌倾斜度评分比阴唇组高1.90±3.52分(p = 0.03)。结论:舌固定矫治器组与唇固定矫治器组在OGS测量的治疗时间和/或治疗结果上无显著差异,但舌侧倾斜度差异明显较大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A Study of the Quality of Finish of Lingual versus Labial Bracket Systems As Measured By the Objective Grading System: A Retrospective Study in a University Orthodontic Clinic
Objective: The purposes of this study were to determine the quality of final orthodontic treatment outcome and average treatment time with fixed lingual brackets compared to labial brackets. Our hypothesis was that labial fixed appliances produce a higher quality of final treatment outcome, and a shorter average treatment time compared to lingual fixed appliances. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study of matched pairs. Records of twenty subjects treated with lingual appliances were included. These were paired with twenty patient records of subjects in fixed labial appliances with matching initial discrepancy index (DI) (±5 points), Angle classification (within one-half step), number of extracted teeth, and age. Final models were scored using the eight criteria of the American Board of Orthodontics’ Objective Grading System (OGS) and treatment time was recorded in number of days. Results: The mean difference in OGS scores between groups was 2.00 ± 8.89 points with a mean OGS score of the labial and lingual fixed appliance groups of 21.6 ± 7.45 and 19.6 ± 6.43, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.33). Lingual subjects’ treatment time was an average of 4.25 ± 213.78 days less compared to their matched labial subjects. This difference was not significant (p = 0.93). A statistically significant difference was found in the buccolingual inclination subcategory of the OGS. The mean difference in the buccolingual inclination score of lingual subjects was 1.90 ± 3.52 points higher than labial subjects (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Lingual fixed appliance subjects had no significant difference in treatment time and / or treatment outcome as measured by OGS when paired with labial fixed appliance subjects, however, they did have significantly higher buccolingual inclination discrepancies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact, Utility and Need for Tele Orthodontics in Recent Times-A Systematic Review Orofacial Pain and Temporomandibular Joint Disorder: Chair-Side Routine Diagnostics (Radiography, Ultrasonography) and Mihalyi Ultrasonography Measured Splint Therapy, A Case Report Evaluation of Fracture Resistance in Maxillary Premolar Teeth Restored with Different Direct Composite Restorative Material Odontogenic Keratocyst in Anterior Mandible: A Case Report Effectiveness of Non-Surgical and Surgical Periodontal Therapy in Lowering HbA1c in Diabetic Patients
×
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