下颌全弓远端植入微型植入体和下颌后移手术治疗后稳定性的比较。

Yoon-Ah Kook, Tae-Hyun Choi, Jae Hyun Park, So-Hyun Kim, Nam-Ki Lee
{"title":"下颌全弓远端植入微型植入体和下颌后移手术治疗后稳定性的比较。","authors":"Yoon-Ah Kook, Tae-Hyun Choi, Jae Hyun Park, So-Hyun Kim, Nam-Ki Lee","doi":"10.2319/062723-447.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare posttreatment stability in skeletal Class III patients between those treated by total mandibular arch distalization (TMAD) with buccal mini-implants and those by mandibular setback surgery (MSS).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The samples included 40 Class III adults, 20 treated by TMAD using buccal interradicular mini-implants and 20 treated with MSS. Lateral cephalograms were taken at pretreatment, posttreatment, and at least 1-year follow-up, and 24 variables were compared using statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mandibular first molars moved distally 1.9 mm with intrusion of 1.1 mm after treatment in the TMAD group. The mandibular incisors moved distally by 2.3 mm. The MSS group exhibited a significant skeletal change of the mandible, whereas the TMAD group did not. During retention, there were no skeletal or dental changes other than 0.6 mm labial movement of the mandibular incisors (P < .05) in the MSS group. There was 1.4° of mesial tipping (P < .01) and 0.4 mm of mesial movement of the mandibular molars and 1.9° of labial tipping (P < .001) and 0.8 mm of mesial movement of the mandibular incisors in the TMAD group. These dental changes were not significantly different between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The TMAD group showed a slightly decreased overjet with labial tipping of the mandibular incisors and mesial tipping of the first molars during retention. Posttreatment stability of the mandibular dentition was not significantly different between the groups. It can be useful to plan camouflage treatment by TMAD with mini-implants in mild-to-moderate Class III patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":"159-167"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10893925/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of posttreatment stability after total mandibular arch distalization with mini-implants and mandibular setback surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Yoon-Ah Kook, Tae-Hyun Choi, Jae Hyun Park, So-Hyun Kim, Nam-Ki Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.2319/062723-447.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare posttreatment stability in skeletal Class III patients between those treated by total mandibular arch distalization (TMAD) with buccal mini-implants and those by mandibular setback surgery (MSS).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The samples included 40 Class III adults, 20 treated by TMAD using buccal interradicular mini-implants and 20 treated with MSS. Lateral cephalograms were taken at pretreatment, posttreatment, and at least 1-year follow-up, and 24 variables were compared using statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mandibular first molars moved distally 1.9 mm with intrusion of 1.1 mm after treatment in the TMAD group. The mandibular incisors moved distally by 2.3 mm. The MSS group exhibited a significant skeletal change of the mandible, whereas the TMAD group did not. During retention, there were no skeletal or dental changes other than 0.6 mm labial movement of the mandibular incisors (P < .05) in the MSS group. There was 1.4° of mesial tipping (P < .01) and 0.4 mm of mesial movement of the mandibular molars and 1.9° of labial tipping (P < .001) and 0.8 mm of mesial movement of the mandibular incisors in the TMAD group. These dental changes were not significantly different between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The TMAD group showed a slightly decreased overjet with labial tipping of the mandibular incisors and mesial tipping of the first molars during retention. Posttreatment stability of the mandibular dentition was not significantly different between the groups. It can be useful to plan camouflage treatment by TMAD with mini-implants in mild-to-moderate Class III patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Angle orthodontist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"159-167\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10893925/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Angle orthodontist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2319/062723-447.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/062723-447.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较下颌骨全弓远端截骨术(TMAD)和下颌骨后移手术(MSS)治疗后骨骼III级患者的稳定性:样本包括 40 名 III 类成人,其中 20 人接受了使用颊面骨间微型植入物的全下颌牙弓远端矫治术,20 人接受了下颌后缩手术。分别在治疗前、治疗后和至少 1 年的随访期间拍摄侧方头影,并通过统计分析对 24 个变量进行比较:结果:TMAD组治疗后,下颌第一磨牙向远端移动了1.9毫米,内陷1.1毫米。下颌切牙向远端移动了 2.3 毫米。MSS 组的下颌骨出现了明显的骨骼变化,而 TMAD 组则没有。在固位期间,MSS 组除了下颌门牙向唇侧移动 0.6 mm 外(P < .05),没有其他骨骼或牙齿变化。TMAD组的下颌臼齿有1.4°的中侧倾倒(P < .01)和0.4毫米的中侧移动,下颌切牙有1.9°的唇侧倾倒(P < .001)和0.8毫米的中侧移动。这些牙齿变化在两组之间没有明显差异:结论:TMAD组的过咬合略有减少,下颌切牙在保持期间向唇侧倾斜,第一磨牙向中侧倾斜。治疗后下颌牙列的稳定性在两组间无明显差异。对于轻度至中度的 III 类患者,用微型种植体进行 TMAD 伪装治疗是非常有用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of posttreatment stability after total mandibular arch distalization with mini-implants and mandibular setback surgery.

Objectives: To compare posttreatment stability in skeletal Class III patients between those treated by total mandibular arch distalization (TMAD) with buccal mini-implants and those by mandibular setback surgery (MSS).

Materials and methods: The samples included 40 Class III adults, 20 treated by TMAD using buccal interradicular mini-implants and 20 treated with MSS. Lateral cephalograms were taken at pretreatment, posttreatment, and at least 1-year follow-up, and 24 variables were compared using statistical analysis.

Results: Mandibular first molars moved distally 1.9 mm with intrusion of 1.1 mm after treatment in the TMAD group. The mandibular incisors moved distally by 2.3 mm. The MSS group exhibited a significant skeletal change of the mandible, whereas the TMAD group did not. During retention, there were no skeletal or dental changes other than 0.6 mm labial movement of the mandibular incisors (P < .05) in the MSS group. There was 1.4° of mesial tipping (P < .01) and 0.4 mm of mesial movement of the mandibular molars and 1.9° of labial tipping (P < .001) and 0.8 mm of mesial movement of the mandibular incisors in the TMAD group. These dental changes were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions: The TMAD group showed a slightly decreased overjet with labial tipping of the mandibular incisors and mesial tipping of the first molars during retention. Posttreatment stability of the mandibular dentition was not significantly different between the groups. It can be useful to plan camouflage treatment by TMAD with mini-implants in mild-to-moderate Class III patients.

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
×
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