Effect of clear aligners and Z-spring appliance on anterior crossbite correction and quality of life in the mixed dentition: a randomized clinical trial.

IF 3.2
Buse Nur Gok, Ahmet Yalcin Gungor, Ozge Erken Gungor
{"title":"Effect of clear aligners and Z-spring appliance on anterior crossbite correction and quality of life in the mixed dentition: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Buse Nur Gok, Ahmet Yalcin Gungor, Ozge Erken Gungor","doi":"10.2319/022125-154.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the efficacy of clear aligners and Z-spring (ZS) appliances in treating dental anterior crossbite (AC) during the mixed dentition period.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Thirty patients (7-12 years) with Angle Class I occlusion and isolated pseudo-Class III AC were randomly assigned to clear aligners (Group A, n = 15) or ZS appliances (Group B, n = 15). Outcomes were evaluated based on duration, cephalometric changes, model analysis, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), assessed using the Child Oral Health Impact Profile-Short Form-19 (COHIP-SF-19).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>AC was successfully corrected in all patients. Treatment duration was significantly shorter in Group B (48.4 ± 27 days) than in Group A (96.3 ± 22.7 days) (P < .05). U1-NA angle increased by 5.9° and overjet by 4 mm in Group A; in Group B, U1-NA increased by 7.7° and overjet by 4.2 mm (P < .01). Intergroup cephalometric changes (ΔT1-T0) were not significant (P > .05). In Group A, incisal and gingival arch depths increased significantly (2.6 mm and 1.17 mm, respectively; P < .001), whereas no significant changes occurred in Group B (P > .05). COHIP-SF-19 scores were comparable (P > .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clear aligners and ZS appliances were effective in treating dental AC, achieving normal overjet relationships. However, ZS appliances may cause greater tipping, whereas clear aligners facilitate tipping, alignment, and bodily movement. Treatments demonstrated comparable effects on OHRQoL of children. This study provides a foundation for future research on different appliances for managing AC in the mixed dentition.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/022125-154.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of clear aligners and Z-spring (ZS) appliances in treating dental anterior crossbite (AC) during the mixed dentition period.

Materials and methods: Thirty patients (7-12 years) with Angle Class I occlusion and isolated pseudo-Class III AC were randomly assigned to clear aligners (Group A, n = 15) or ZS appliances (Group B, n = 15). Outcomes were evaluated based on duration, cephalometric changes, model analysis, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), assessed using the Child Oral Health Impact Profile-Short Form-19 (COHIP-SF-19).

Results: AC was successfully corrected in all patients. Treatment duration was significantly shorter in Group B (48.4 ± 27 days) than in Group A (96.3 ± 22.7 days) (P < .05). U1-NA angle increased by 5.9° and overjet by 4 mm in Group A; in Group B, U1-NA increased by 7.7° and overjet by 4.2 mm (P < .01). Intergroup cephalometric changes (ΔT1-T0) were not significant (P > .05). In Group A, incisal and gingival arch depths increased significantly (2.6 mm and 1.17 mm, respectively; P < .001), whereas no significant changes occurred in Group B (P > .05). COHIP-SF-19 scores were comparable (P > .05).

Conclusion: Clear aligners and ZS appliances were effective in treating dental AC, achieving normal overjet relationships. However, ZS appliances may cause greater tipping, whereas clear aligners facilitate tipping, alignment, and bodily movement. Treatments demonstrated comparable effects on OHRQoL of children. This study provides a foundation for future research on different appliances for managing AC in the mixed dentition.

透明矫正器和Z-spring矫治器对混合牙列前牙合矫正和生活质量的影响:一项随机临床试验。
目的:比较清牙矫正器与Z-spring矫治器治疗混合牙列期牙前交叉咬合(AC)的疗效。材料和方法:30例(7-12岁)角I类咬合和孤立的假III类AC患者随机分为清除矫正器(A组,n = 15)或ZS矫治器(B组,n = 15)。使用儿童口腔健康影响概况-短表格19 (COHIP-SF-19)评估基于持续时间、头部测量变化、模型分析和口腔健康相关生活质量(OHRQoL)的结果。结果:所有患者均成功矫正AC。治疗时间B组(48.4±27 d)显著短于A组(96.3±22.7 d) (P < 0.05)。A组U1-NA角增加5.9°,超喷增加4 mm;B组U1-NA升高7.7°,超喷4.2 mm (P < 0.01)。组间头颅测量变化(ΔT1-T0)无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。A组切牙弓深度和龈弓深度明显增加(分别为2.6 mm和1.17 mm, P < 0.001),而B组无明显变化(P < 0.05)。COHIP-SF-19评分具有可比性(P < 0.05)。结论:清除矫正器和ZS矫治器治疗牙体交流是有效的,可以达到正常的覆盖关系。然而,ZS器具可能会导致更大的倾斜,而清晰的对准器促进倾斜,对准和身体运动。治疗对儿童的OHRQoL有相当的影响。本研究为今后研究不同矫治器在混合牙列中控制交流提供了基础。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信