The Efficacy of the RME II System Compared with a Herbst Appliance in the Treatment of Class II Skeletal Malocclusion in Growing Patients: A Retrospective Study.

IF 2.5 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Domenico Ciavarella, Mauro Lorusso, Carlotta Fanelli, Donatella Ferrara, Rosa Esposito, Michele Laurenziello, Fariba Esperouz, Lucio Lo Russo, Michele Tepedino
{"title":"The Efficacy of the RME II System Compared with a Herbst Appliance in the Treatment of Class II Skeletal Malocclusion in Growing Patients: A Retrospective Study.","authors":"Domenico Ciavarella, Mauro Lorusso, Carlotta Fanelli, Donatella Ferrara, Rosa Esposito, Michele Laurenziello, Fariba Esperouz, Lucio Lo Russo, Michele Tepedino","doi":"10.3390/dj12080254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>(1) Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Rapid Maxillary Expander (RME) II System compared to a Herbst appliance and a control group in the treatment of class II skeletal malocclusions in growing patients. (2) Methods: A total of 30 class II patients treated using the RME II System (group R) were compared with 30 patients treated with a Herbst appliance (group H) and 30 untreated class II children (group C). Cephalograms were compared at the start (T0) and after 24 months (T1). Nine cephalometric parameters were analyzed: SN-MP, SN-PO, ANB, AR-GO-ME, AR-GO-N, N-GO-ME, SN-PP, LFH, CO-GN, 1+SN, IMPA, OVERJET, and OVERBITE. Since the variables failed the normality test, a Wilcoxon test was performed for a pairwise comparison of the cephalometric measurements taken at T0 (pre-treatment) and at T1 (post-treatment). ANOVA with Tukey post hoc correction was used to evaluate the differences among the groups. (3) Results: ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference for all analyzed variables except for AR-GO-ME, AR-GO-N, and N-GO-ME. Post hoc Tukey's HSD test showed the following difference: the SN-PO angle in group H was 3.59° greater than in group R; the LFH in group H was 4.13 mm greater than in group R. The mandibular length (CO-GN) in group H was 3.94 mm greater than in group R; IMPA in group H was 6.4° greater than in group R; and the ANB angle in group H was 1.47° greater than in group R. (4) Conclusions: The RME II System is an effective therapeutic device for class II skeletal malocclusion treatment in growing patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":"12 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11354209/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12080254","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

(1) Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Rapid Maxillary Expander (RME) II System compared to a Herbst appliance and a control group in the treatment of class II skeletal malocclusions in growing patients. (2) Methods: A total of 30 class II patients treated using the RME II System (group R) were compared with 30 patients treated with a Herbst appliance (group H) and 30 untreated class II children (group C). Cephalograms were compared at the start (T0) and after 24 months (T1). Nine cephalometric parameters were analyzed: SN-MP, SN-PO, ANB, AR-GO-ME, AR-GO-N, N-GO-ME, SN-PP, LFH, CO-GN, 1+SN, IMPA, OVERJET, and OVERBITE. Since the variables failed the normality test, a Wilcoxon test was performed for a pairwise comparison of the cephalometric measurements taken at T0 (pre-treatment) and at T1 (post-treatment). ANOVA with Tukey post hoc correction was used to evaluate the differences among the groups. (3) Results: ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference for all analyzed variables except for AR-GO-ME, AR-GO-N, and N-GO-ME. Post hoc Tukey's HSD test showed the following difference: the SN-PO angle in group H was 3.59° greater than in group R; the LFH in group H was 4.13 mm greater than in group R. The mandibular length (CO-GN) in group H was 3.94 mm greater than in group R; IMPA in group H was 6.4° greater than in group R; and the ANB angle in group H was 1.47° greater than in group R. (4) Conclusions: The RME II System is an effective therapeutic device for class II skeletal malocclusion treatment in growing patients.

RME II 系统与赫氏矫治器在治疗生长期患者 II 类骨骼错合畸形方面的疗效比较:回顾性研究。
(1) 背景:本研究的目的是评估快速上颌扩弓器(RME)II系统与赫氏矫治器和对照组相比,在治疗生长期患者的II类骨骼畸形方面的疗效。(2)方法:将使用 RME II 系统治疗的 30 名 II 类患者(R 组)与使用赫氏矫正器治疗的 30 名患者(H 组)和 30 名未经治疗的 II 类儿童(C 组)进行比较。比较了开始治疗时(T0)和 24 个月后(T1)的头影。对九个头颅测量参数进行了分析:SN-MP、SN-PO、ANB、AR-GO-ME、AR-GO-N、N-GO-ME、SN-PP、LFH、CO-GN、1+SN、IMPA、OVERJET 和 OVERBITE。由于这些变量未能通过正态性检验,因此采用 Wilcoxon 检验对 T0(治疗前)和 T1(治疗后)的头颅测量结果进行配对比较。采用方差分析和 Tukey 后校正来评估组间差异。(3) 结果:方差分析显示,除 AR-GO-ME、AR-GO-N 和 N-GO-ME 外,所有分析变量的差异均有统计学意义。H组的下颌长度(CO-GN)比R组大3.94毫米;H组的IMPA比R组大6.4°;H组的ANB角比R组大1.47°:RME II 系统是治疗生长期患者 II 类骨骼错合畸形的有效治疗设备。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Dentistry Journal
Dentistry Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
213
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信