Efficiency of Class II Malocclusion Treatment With Extraction of 2 Maxillary Premolars and the First Class Appliance Anchored in Mini-Implants.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Diego Luiz Tonello, Heloísa Nelson Cavalcanti, Vinícius Ribeiro de Almeida Lázaro, Silvio Augusto Bellini-Pereira, Aron Aliaga-Del Castillo, José Fernando Castanha Henriques, Daniela Garib, Guilherme Janson
{"title":"Efficiency of Class II Malocclusion Treatment With Extraction of 2 Maxillary Premolars and the First Class Appliance Anchored in Mini-Implants.","authors":"Diego Luiz Tonello, Heloísa Nelson Cavalcanti, Vinícius Ribeiro de Almeida Lázaro, Silvio Augusto Bellini-Pereira, Aron Aliaga-Del Castillo, José Fernando Castanha Henriques, Daniela Garib, Guilherme Janson","doi":"10.1111/ocr.12905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Treatment efficiency is considered an important clinical variable in orthodontic practice; therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficiency between different Class II compensatory treatment approaches. The extraction of 2 maxillary premolars was compared to molar distalization with the First Class distaliser indirectly anchored to mini-implants.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective sample of 31 patients was divided into two groups. Group 1: Class II treatment with two premolar extractions; 18 patients with a mean initial age of 14.3 ± 1.3 years. Group 2: Distalization with the First Class appliance indirectly anchored to mini-implants; 13 patients with a mean initial age of 13.3 ± 1.3 years. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and the Objective Grading System (OGS) were used to calculate the percentage of occlusal improvement (PcPAR), treatment time (TT) and treatment efficiency index (TEI). The occlusal indexes, TT and TEI between both groups were compared using t tests (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Similar occlusal outcomes were observed between the groups, with no statistically significant differences (F-PAR and OGS). The TT in Group 1 was significantly shorter compared to Group 2. As a result, treatment with extractions was significantly more efficient (TEI: 3.23) than the treatment with maxillary molar distalization anchored indirectly to mini-implants (TEI: 1.95).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both treatment protocols showed similar occlusal results; however, Class II correction with two premolar extractions is significantly more efficient than molar distalization with indirect skeletal anchorage.</p>","PeriodicalId":19652,"journal":{"name":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12905","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","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

Objectives: Treatment efficiency is considered an important clinical variable in orthodontic practice; therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficiency between different Class II compensatory treatment approaches. The extraction of 2 maxillary premolars was compared to molar distalization with the First Class distaliser indirectly anchored to mini-implants.

Materials and methods: A retrospective sample of 31 patients was divided into two groups. Group 1: Class II treatment with two premolar extractions; 18 patients with a mean initial age of 14.3 ± 1.3 years. Group 2: Distalization with the First Class appliance indirectly anchored to mini-implants; 13 patients with a mean initial age of 13.3 ± 1.3 years. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and the Objective Grading System (OGS) were used to calculate the percentage of occlusal improvement (PcPAR), treatment time (TT) and treatment efficiency index (TEI). The occlusal indexes, TT and TEI between both groups were compared using t tests (p < 0.05).

Results: Similar occlusal outcomes were observed between the groups, with no statistically significant differences (F-PAR and OGS). The TT in Group 1 was significantly shorter compared to Group 2. As a result, treatment with extractions was significantly more efficient (TEI: 3.23) than the treatment with maxillary molar distalization anchored indirectly to mini-implants (TEI: 1.95).

Conclusions: Both treatment protocols showed similar occlusal results; however, Class II correction with two premolar extractions is significantly more efficient than molar distalization with indirect skeletal anchorage.

研究目的在正畸实践中,治疗效率被认为是一个重要的临床变量;因此,本研究旨在比较不同二类补偿治疗方法的效率。将拔除两颗上颌前磨牙与使用间接锚定在微型种植体上的一级远隔器进行磨牙远隔进行了比较:31名患者被分为两组。第一组:二类治疗,拔除两颗前磨牙;18 名患者,平均初始年龄为(14.3 ± 1.3)岁。第二组使用间接固定在微型种植体上的第一类矫治器进行远端矫治;13 名患者,平均初始年龄为(13.3 ± 1.3)岁。采用同行评估等级(PAR)和客观分级系统(OGS)计算咬合改善百分比(PcPAR)、治疗时间(TT)和治疗效率指数(TEI)。采用 t 检验比较两组患者的咬合指数、TT 和 TEI(P 结果:两组患者的咬合指数、TT 和 TEI 相近:两组的咬合结果相似,无统计学差异(F-PAR 和 OGS)。与第二组相比,第一组的 TT 明显较短。因此,拔牙治疗的效率(TEI:3.23)明显高于间接锚定微型种植体的上颌磨牙远端化治疗(TEI:1.95):两种治疗方案显示出相似的咬合效果;但是,拔除两颗前磨牙的II类矫治明显比间接骨骼固定的磨牙远端矫治更有效。
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
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
65
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research - Genes, Growth and Development is published to serve its readers as an international forum for the presentation and critical discussion of issues pertinent to the advancement of the specialty of orthodontics and the evidence-based knowledge of craniofacial growth and development. This forum is based on scientifically supported information, but also includes minority and conflicting opinions. The objective of the journal is to facilitate effective communication between the research community and practicing clinicians. Original papers of high scientific quality that report the findings of clinical trials, clinical epidemiology, and novel therapeutic or diagnostic approaches are appropriate submissions. Similarly, we welcome papers in genetics, developmental biology, syndromology, surgery, speech and hearing, and other biomedical disciplines related to clinical orthodontics and normal and abnormal craniofacial growth and development. In addition to original and basic research, the journal publishes concise reviews, case reports of substantial value, invited essays, letters, and announcements. The journal is published quarterly. The review of submitted papers will be coordinated by the editor and members of the editorial board. It is policy to review manuscripts within 3 to 4 weeks of receipt and to publish within 3 to 6 months of acceptance.
×
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