上颌快速扩张收缩/反向头套交替治疗能提高咽气道尺寸吗?

IF 0.8 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Nivethitha Bhaskar, S. Sundareswaran, Latheef Vadakkeypeediakkal, Praveen Santhakumar, S. Sathyanathan
{"title":"上颌快速扩张收缩/反向头套交替治疗能提高咽气道尺寸吗?","authors":"Nivethitha Bhaskar, S. Sundareswaran, Latheef Vadakkeypeediakkal, Praveen Santhakumar, S. Sathyanathan","doi":"10.5152/turkjorthod.2022.20141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nThe enhanced effect of maxillary protraction following the Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion-Constriction/Reverse Headgear (AltRAMEC/RH) protocol over the Rapid Maxillary Expansion/Reverse Headgear (RME/RH) protocol has been well documented. However, it is not known if the airway dimensions also follow a similar enhancement. This retrospective cohort study therefore aims to compare dimensional changes in the pharyngeal airway after maxillary protraction following RME/RH, versus AltRAMEC/RH.\n\n\nMETHODS\nPre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of 46 skeletal Class III patients with maxillary retrusion, who had undergone maxillary protraction using the AltRAMEC/RH or RME/RH protocol were compared for 20 dentoskeletal and airway variables. The waiting period of 6-8 months before initiating treatment served as the control period. The results were statistically evaluated using the paired t-test, the independent t-test, and the intraclass correlation coefficient.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe nasopharyngeal airway indicators in the AltRAMEC/RH group (PNS-ad1, PNS-ad2, UPD) showed a statistically significant mean increase of 2.09 mm, 2.74 mm, and 1.30 mm respectively. This was significantly more pronounced than the RME/RH group (P < .001). The control period did not show any significant change, thus showing the negligible effect of growth on the airway dimension. No significant changes were observed in the oropharyngeal airway indicators for both groups (P > .001).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe AltRAMEC/RH protocol produced more significant improvement in the nasopharyngeal airway dimensions as compared to the RME/RH protocol. The changes in the oropharyngeal airway were insignificant with both the protocols.","PeriodicalId":37013,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","volume":"127 2 1","pages":"7-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the Alternate Rapid Maxillary ExpansionConstriction/Reverse Headgear Therapy Enhance Pharyngeal Airway Dimensions?\",\"authors\":\"Nivethitha Bhaskar, S. Sundareswaran, Latheef Vadakkeypeediakkal, Praveen Santhakumar, S. Sathyanathan\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/turkjorthod.2022.20141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\nThe enhanced effect of maxillary protraction following the Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion-Constriction/Reverse Headgear (AltRAMEC/RH) protocol over the Rapid Maxillary Expansion/Reverse Headgear (RME/RH) protocol has been well documented. However, it is not known if the airway dimensions also follow a similar enhancement. This retrospective cohort study therefore aims to compare dimensional changes in the pharyngeal airway after maxillary protraction following RME/RH, versus AltRAMEC/RH.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nPre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of 46 skeletal Class III patients with maxillary retrusion, who had undergone maxillary protraction using the AltRAMEC/RH or RME/RH protocol were compared for 20 dentoskeletal and airway variables. The waiting period of 6-8 months before initiating treatment served as the control period. The results were statistically evaluated using the paired t-test, the independent t-test, and the intraclass correlation coefficient.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nThe nasopharyngeal airway indicators in the AltRAMEC/RH group (PNS-ad1, PNS-ad2, UPD) showed a statistically significant mean increase of 2.09 mm, 2.74 mm, and 1.30 mm respectively. This was significantly more pronounced than the RME/RH group (P < .001). The control period did not show any significant change, thus showing the negligible effect of growth on the airway dimension. No significant changes were observed in the oropharyngeal airway indicators for both groups (P > .001).\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nThe AltRAMEC/RH protocol produced more significant improvement in the nasopharyngeal airway dimensions as compared to the RME/RH protocol. The changes in the oropharyngeal airway were insignificant with both the protocols.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics\",\"volume\":\"127 2 1\",\"pages\":\"7-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/turkjorthod.2022.20141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/turkjorthod.2022.20141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:与快速上颌扩张/反向头套(RME/RH)方案相比,交替快速上颌扩张-收缩/反向头套(altramc /RH)方案对上颌牵出的增强效果已经有了很好的文献记录。然而,尚不清楚气道尺寸是否也遵循类似的增强。因此,本回顾性队列研究旨在比较RME/RH与altramc /RH后上颌前伸后咽气道的尺寸变化。方法对46例采用AltRAMEC/RH或RME/RH方案进行上颌后伸手术的III类骨骼患者进行术前和术后侧位头颅造影,比较20个牙骨骼和气道变量。治疗前6 ~ 8个月为对照期。采用配对t检验、独立t检验和类内相关系数对结果进行统计学评价。结果AltRAMEC/RH组鼻咽气道指标PNS-ad1、PNS-ad2、UPD平均升高2.09 mm、2.74 mm、1.30 mm,差异均有统计学意义。这比RME/RH组更明显(P < 0.001)。对照期未见明显变化,可见生长对气道尺寸的影响可忽略不计。两组患者口咽部气道指标均无明显变化(P < 0.001)。结论:与RME/RH方案相比,altramac /RH方案在鼻咽气道尺寸方面有更显著的改善。两种治疗方案对口咽气道的改变均不显著。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does the Alternate Rapid Maxillary ExpansionConstriction/Reverse Headgear Therapy Enhance Pharyngeal Airway Dimensions?
OBJECTIVE The enhanced effect of maxillary protraction following the Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion-Constriction/Reverse Headgear (AltRAMEC/RH) protocol over the Rapid Maxillary Expansion/Reverse Headgear (RME/RH) protocol has been well documented. However, it is not known if the airway dimensions also follow a similar enhancement. This retrospective cohort study therefore aims to compare dimensional changes in the pharyngeal airway after maxillary protraction following RME/RH, versus AltRAMEC/RH. METHODS Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of 46 skeletal Class III patients with maxillary retrusion, who had undergone maxillary protraction using the AltRAMEC/RH or RME/RH protocol were compared for 20 dentoskeletal and airway variables. The waiting period of 6-8 months before initiating treatment served as the control period. The results were statistically evaluated using the paired t-test, the independent t-test, and the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS The nasopharyngeal airway indicators in the AltRAMEC/RH group (PNS-ad1, PNS-ad2, UPD) showed a statistically significant mean increase of 2.09 mm, 2.74 mm, and 1.30 mm respectively. This was significantly more pronounced than the RME/RH group (P < .001). The control period did not show any significant change, thus showing the negligible effect of growth on the airway dimension. No significant changes were observed in the oropharyngeal airway indicators for both groups (P > .001). CONCLUSIONS The AltRAMEC/RH protocol produced more significant improvement in the nasopharyngeal airway dimensions as compared to the RME/RH protocol. The changes in the oropharyngeal airway were insignificant with both the protocols.
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
Turkish Journal of Orthodontics
Turkish Journal of Orthodontics Dentistry-Orthodontics
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
9.10%
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信