直接与间接骨支抗治疗II类错颌磨牙远端的前瞻性临床研究。

IF 2.6 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Zeyad M Ali, Marwa S Shamaa, Mohammad H Mohammad
{"title":"直接与间接骨支抗治疗II类错颌磨牙远端的前瞻性临床研究。","authors":"Zeyad M Ali, Marwa S Shamaa, Mohammad H Mohammad","doi":"10.1016/j.ejwf.2025.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the dentoalveolar and skeletal changes induced by the direct bone-anchored pull distal slider (PDS) and the indirect bone-anchored dual force distalizer (DFD) in Class II malocclusion patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty subjects (mean age: PDS = 12.8 ± 0.9 years, DFD = 12.9 ± 1 years) were randomly assigned to either the PDS or DFD group. Both appliances employed temporary skeletal anchorage devices to achieve molar distalization. Lateral cephalometric radiographs and dental casts were analyzed before (T1) and after (T2) treatment to evaluate skeletal and dental effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both devices successfully distalized the maxillary first molars (PDS = 7 ± 1 months, DFD = 9 ± 2 months). The distalization amounts were not significantly different (P = 0.339). However, the PDS group exhibited minimal distal tipping (1.75° ± 0.63°, P < 0.001), while the DFD group showed mesial tipping (2.27° ± 5.37°, P = 0.270). The PDS group demonstrated significant maxillary incisor retroclination (-3.21° ± 0.99°, P < 0.001), whereas the DFD group exhibited significant proclination (2.95° ± 1.83°, P = 0.003) and mesial movement (0.91 ± 0.51 mm, P = 0.001). Additionally, the PDS group experienced spontaneous distal premolar drifting, while the DFD group showed mesial movement and tipping of the premolars.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both PDS and DFD effectively distalized maxillary molars, but the PDS provided better control by minimizing tipping and anchorage loss, while the DFD caused anterior anchorage loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":43456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of direct and indirect skeletal anchorage for maxillary molar distalization in Class II malocclusion: A prospective clinical study.\",\"authors\":\"Zeyad M Ali, Marwa S Shamaa, Mohammad H Mohammad\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejwf.2025.05.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the dentoalveolar and skeletal changes induced by the direct bone-anchored pull distal slider (PDS) and the indirect bone-anchored dual force distalizer (DFD) in Class II malocclusion patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty subjects (mean age: PDS = 12.8 ± 0.9 years, DFD = 12.9 ± 1 years) were randomly assigned to either the PDS or DFD group. Both appliances employed temporary skeletal anchorage devices to achieve molar distalization. Lateral cephalometric radiographs and dental casts were analyzed before (T1) and after (T2) treatment to evaluate skeletal and dental effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both devices successfully distalized the maxillary first molars (PDS = 7 ± 1 months, DFD = 9 ± 2 months). The distalization amounts were not significantly different (P = 0.339). However, the PDS group exhibited minimal distal tipping (1.75° ± 0.63°, P < 0.001), while the DFD group showed mesial tipping (2.27° ± 5.37°, P = 0.270). The PDS group demonstrated significant maxillary incisor retroclination (-3.21° ± 0.99°, P < 0.001), whereas the DFD group exhibited significant proclination (2.95° ± 1.83°, P = 0.003) and mesial movement (0.91 ± 0.51 mm, P = 0.001). Additionally, the PDS group experienced spontaneous distal premolar drifting, while the DFD group showed mesial movement and tipping of the premolars.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both PDS and DFD effectively distalized maxillary molars, but the PDS provided better control by minimizing tipping and anchorage loss, while the DFD caused anterior anchorage loss.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43456,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2025.05.002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2025.05.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:比较直接骨锚定牵引远端滑块(PDS)与间接骨锚定双力离远器(DFD)对ⅱ类错颌患者牙槽骨和骨骼的影响。材料与方法:20例受试者(平均年龄:PDS = 12.8±0.9岁,DFD = 12.9±1岁)随机分为PDS组和DFD组。两种矫治器均采用临时骨锚定装置实现磨牙远端。分析治疗前(T1)和治疗后(T2)的侧位头颅x线片和牙模,以评估骨骼和牙齿的影响。结果:两种器械均成功拔除上颌第一磨牙(PDS = 7±1个月,DFD = 9±2个月)。离体量差异无统计学意义(P = 0.339)。然而,PDS组表现出最小的远端倾斜(1.75°±0.63°,P < 0.001),而DFD组表现出中端倾斜(2.27°±5.37°,P = 0.270)。PDS组上颌切牙明显后倾(-3.21°±0.99°,P < 0.001),而DFD组上颌切牙明显前倾(2.95°±1.83°,P = 0.003)和中位运动(0.91±0.51 mm, P = 0.001)。此外,PDS组出现自发的远端前磨牙漂移,而DFD组出现近端前磨牙移动和倾斜。结论:PDS和DFD均能有效地使上颌磨牙离体,但PDS能更好地控制上颌磨牙的倾斜和支抗损失,而DFD能减少前支抗损失。
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 direct and indirect skeletal anchorage for maxillary molar distalization in Class II malocclusion: A prospective clinical study.

Background: To compare the dentoalveolar and skeletal changes induced by the direct bone-anchored pull distal slider (PDS) and the indirect bone-anchored dual force distalizer (DFD) in Class II malocclusion patients.

Materials and methods: Twenty subjects (mean age: PDS = 12.8 ± 0.9 years, DFD = 12.9 ± 1 years) were randomly assigned to either the PDS or DFD group. Both appliances employed temporary skeletal anchorage devices to achieve molar distalization. Lateral cephalometric radiographs and dental casts were analyzed before (T1) and after (T2) treatment to evaluate skeletal and dental effects.

Results: Both devices successfully distalized the maxillary first molars (PDS = 7 ± 1 months, DFD = 9 ± 2 months). The distalization amounts were not significantly different (P = 0.339). However, the PDS group exhibited minimal distal tipping (1.75° ± 0.63°, P < 0.001), while the DFD group showed mesial tipping (2.27° ± 5.37°, P = 0.270). The PDS group demonstrated significant maxillary incisor retroclination (-3.21° ± 0.99°, P < 0.001), whereas the DFD group exhibited significant proclination (2.95° ± 1.83°, P = 0.003) and mesial movement (0.91 ± 0.51 mm, P = 0.001). Additionally, the PDS group experienced spontaneous distal premolar drifting, while the DFD group showed mesial movement and tipping of the premolars.

Conclusion: Both PDS and DFD effectively distalized maxillary molars, but the PDS provided better control by minimizing tipping and anchorage loss, while the DFD caused anterior anchorage loss.

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
Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists
Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.80%
发文量
34
×
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