File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Does Class II Correction Result in Growth Modification?

TitleDoes Class II Correction Result in Growth Modification?
Authors
Issue Date2004
PublisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://ejo.oxfordjournals.org/
Citation
European Orthodontic Society 80th Congress, Aarhus, Denmark, 7-11 June 2004. In European Journal of Orthodontics, 2004, v. 26, p. e12-e13 Abstract no.24 How to Cite?
AbstractAIM: To investigate sagittal changes of Class II malocclusions with various orthodontic devices. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: (1) Fixed appliance group: 18 consecutive subjects, non-extraction and Class II elastics, (2) Removable functional appliance group: 17 consecutive subjects, Headgear-Activator (HA), and (3) Fixed functional appliance group: 22 consecutive subjects, Headgear-Herbst (HH) with step-by-step advancement and HA. Growth data from a matched group was used for comparison. Lateral cephalograms were obtained at the start of treatment (T0), after 6 (T6), 12 (T12) and 18 (T18) months. Mandibular change was assessed by measuring Olp-Pg and maxillary change by Olp-A. RESULTS: Changes in the maxilla/mandible over 6 months for Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively were at T6: 0.4/–0.1; 0.2/1.3**; 0.0/3.1***; T12 1.3*/1.7*; 0.1/2.8***; – 0.6**/5.0***; and at T18 1.0*/2.1*; –/–; 0.3/6.6***; T0-T6: there was no difference in the maxillary change between the groups, whereas the mandibular change was greater in group 3 than in group 2 which was greater than in group 1; T0-T12 the mandible in group 3 had greater changes than in group 1 and 2; T0-T18 there was no difference in maxillary change between groups 1 and 2, whereas mandibular change was larger in group 3. CONCLUSION: Growth modification occurred during treatment of Class II: maxillary forward growth was restrained to a similar extent with all three devices. Compared with ‘normal’ growth’, mandibular growth was less for the Begg-group, unaffected in the HA group, and enhanced in the HH group, i.e. it seems that growth is affected to a different extent.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/94104
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.44
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.090

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBendeus, SAMen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHagg, EUOen_HK
dc.contributor.authorDu, Xen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-25T15:21:30Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-25T15:21:30Z-
dc.date.issued2004en_HK
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Orthodontic Society 80th Congress, Aarhus, Denmark, 7-11 June 2004. In European Journal of Orthodontics, 2004, v. 26, p. e12-e13 Abstract no.24en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0141-5387en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/94104-
dc.description.abstractAIM: To investigate sagittal changes of Class II malocclusions with various orthodontic devices. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: (1) Fixed appliance group: 18 consecutive subjects, non-extraction and Class II elastics, (2) Removable functional appliance group: 17 consecutive subjects, Headgear-Activator (HA), and (3) Fixed functional appliance group: 22 consecutive subjects, Headgear-Herbst (HH) with step-by-step advancement and HA. Growth data from a matched group was used for comparison. Lateral cephalograms were obtained at the start of treatment (T0), after 6 (T6), 12 (T12) and 18 (T18) months. Mandibular change was assessed by measuring Olp-Pg and maxillary change by Olp-A. RESULTS: Changes in the maxilla/mandible over 6 months for Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively were at T6: 0.4/–0.1; 0.2/1.3**; 0.0/3.1***; T12 1.3*/1.7*; 0.1/2.8***; – 0.6**/5.0***; and at T18 1.0*/2.1*; –/–; 0.3/6.6***; T0-T6: there was no difference in the maxillary change between the groups, whereas the mandibular change was greater in group 3 than in group 2 which was greater than in group 1; T0-T12 the mandible in group 3 had greater changes than in group 1 and 2; T0-T18 there was no difference in maxillary change between groups 1 and 2, whereas mandibular change was larger in group 3. CONCLUSION: Growth modification occurred during treatment of Class II: maxillary forward growth was restrained to a similar extent with all three devices. Compared with ‘normal’ growth’, mandibular growth was less for the Begg-group, unaffected in the HA group, and enhanced in the HH group, i.e. it seems that growth is affected to a different extent.-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://ejo.oxfordjournals.org/en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal of Orthodonticsen_HK
dc.rightsEuropean Journal of Orthodontics. Copyright © Oxford University Press.en_HK
dc.titleDoes Class II Correction Result in Growth Modification?en_HK
dc.typeConference_Paperen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0141-5387&volume=26&spage=No. 24, page e12&epage=&date=2004&atitle=Does+Class+II+Correction+Result+in+Growth+Modification?+en_HK
dc.identifier.emailBendeus, SAM: sambende@hkusua.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailHagg, EUO: euohagg@hkusua.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityHagg, EUO=rp00020en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ejo/26.5.e1-
dc.identifier.hkuros109970en_HK
dc.identifier.volume26en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats