File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Maxillary growth during puberty determined by the implant method compared with cephalometry

TitleMaxillary growth during puberty determined by the implant method compared with cephalometry
Authors
Issue Date2009
PublisherOxford University Press
Citation
The 85th Congress of the European Orthodontic Society, Helsinki, Finland, 10 – 14 June 2009. In European Journal of Orthodontics, 2009, v. 31 n. 4, p. e159-e160 Abstract no.416 How to Cite?
AbstractAIM: To compare maxillary growth estimates during puberty as determined by the ‘scientifi c method’ compared with three common cephalometric methods. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: Nineteen subjects (7 girls, 12 boys), from the maxillary implant study of Björk and Skieller (1972). The records were obtained three years before puberty (T1), and three years after puberty (T3). Tracings between T1 and T3 were assessed and changes during puberty were calculated. The scientifi c method involved measuring the displacement of the most anterior implant inserted in the maxilla to determine the direction and amount of actual maxillary growth. Horizontal and vertical displacement of point A was assessed according to three cephalometric methods (Bergin et al., Hack et al. and Pancherz). The values obtained from absolute, horizontal and vertical displacement of point A with the scientifi c method with those from the three methods were compared. RESULTS: There were signifi cant differences between the assessments using the scientifi c method and the three other methods (P < 0.05). All three methods overestimated changes in maxillary positioning compared with the scientifi c method. There were signifi cant differences between the absolute displacement with the scientifi c method and the other three methods (P < 0.001). There was also a signifi cant difference between the horizontal and vertical displacement assessments of the scientifi c method and the other three methods (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Estimation of growth changes in maxillary positioning using the scientifi c method and common cephalometric methods were different. All the three cephalometric methods overestimated the growth changes in the maxilla.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/94106
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.44
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.090

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorVerayannont, Pen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHagg, EUOen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWong, RWKen_HK
dc.contributor.authorMcGrath, CPJen_HK
dc.contributor.authorYeung, Sen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-25T15:21:34Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-25T15:21:34Z-
dc.date.issued2009en_HK
dc.identifier.citationThe 85th Congress of the European Orthodontic Society, Helsinki, Finland, 10 – 14 June 2009. In European Journal of Orthodontics, 2009, v. 31 n. 4, p. e159-e160 Abstract no.416en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0141-5387-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/94106-
dc.description.abstractAIM: To compare maxillary growth estimates during puberty as determined by the ‘scientifi c method’ compared with three common cephalometric methods. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: Nineteen subjects (7 girls, 12 boys), from the maxillary implant study of Björk and Skieller (1972). The records were obtained three years before puberty (T1), and three years after puberty (T3). Tracings between T1 and T3 were assessed and changes during puberty were calculated. The scientifi c method involved measuring the displacement of the most anterior implant inserted in the maxilla to determine the direction and amount of actual maxillary growth. Horizontal and vertical displacement of point A was assessed according to three cephalometric methods (Bergin et al., Hack et al. and Pancherz). The values obtained from absolute, horizontal and vertical displacement of point A with the scientifi c method with those from the three methods were compared. RESULTS: There were signifi cant differences between the assessments using the scientifi c method and the three other methods (P < 0.05). All three methods overestimated changes in maxillary positioning compared with the scientifi c method. There were signifi cant differences between the absolute displacement with the scientifi c method and the other three methods (P < 0.001). There was also a signifi cant difference between the horizontal and vertical displacement assessments of the scientifi c method and the other three methods (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Estimation of growth changes in maxillary positioning using the scientifi c method and common cephalometric methods were different. All the three cephalometric methods overestimated the growth changes in the maxilla.-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherOxford University Press-
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal of Orthodonticsen_HK
dc.titleMaxillary growth during puberty determined by the implant method compared with cephalometryen_HK
dc.typeConference_Paperen_HK
dc.identifier.emailHagg, EUO: euohagg@hkusua.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailWong, RWK: fyoung@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailMcGrath, CPJ: mcgrathc@HKUCC.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityHagg, EUO=rp00020en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityWong, RWK=rp00038en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityMcGrath, CPJ=rp00037en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ejo/cjp095-
dc.identifier.hkuros157593en_HK
dc.identifier.spage70en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats