File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Treatment essentials for Improvement of Jaw-Base Relationship in Class II subjects

TitleTreatment essentials for Improvement of Jaw-Base Relationship in Class II subjects
Authors
Issue Date2004
PublisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://ejo.oxfordjournals.org/
Citation
The 80th Congress of European Orthodontic Society, Aarhus, Denmark, 7-11 June 2004. In European Journal of Orthodontics, 2004, v. 26, n. 4, p. e16-e17 Abstract no.34 How to Cite?
AbstractAIM: The amount any individual can be expected to grow may or may not depend on the particular form of treatment (Johnston, 1999). The aim of this study was to investigate the apical-base change with various treatments of a Class II malocclusion SUBJECTS AND METHOD: Three patient groups were compared: (1) the ‘gold standard’ group: Edgewise therapy (Johnston, 1999), (2) Class II elastic group: 18 consecutive subjects, non-extraction with Begg, and (3) Headgear-functional appliance group: 18 consecutive subjects, headgear-Herbst and step-wise advancement of the mandible followed by a headgear-activator. Lateral cephalograms were obtained for all groups at the start of treatment (T0), and after 6 (T6), 12 (T12) and 18 (T18) months (groups 2 and 3), and after 24 months (group 1). RESULTS: The antero-posterior (A-P) distance had improved 2.3 mm*** in group 1 after 24 months. In group 2 it worsened 0.5 mm at T6, improved 0.4 mm at T12 and 1.1 mm** at T18. In group 3 it had improved 3.1 mm*** at T6, 5.6 mm*** at T12 and 6.3 mm*** at T18. At T24 the groups had 74, 41 and 36 per cent of A-P change versus the groups at T6, T12 and T18. Group 1 had 20 per cent of the A-P change of group 3 at T18. CONCLUSION: The choice of orthodontic device used for improvement of the apical base relationship in the treatment of Class II malocclusions seemingly matters to a clinically significant level. However for some orthodontic devices the treatment change of A-P distance might not differ significantly from that of growth only.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/94251
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.44
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.090

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHagg, EUOen_HK
dc.contributor.authorRabie, ABMen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHansen, Ken_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-25T15:25:52Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-25T15:25:52Z-
dc.date.issued2004en_HK
dc.identifier.citationThe 80th Congress of European Orthodontic Society, Aarhus, Denmark, 7-11 June 2004. In European Journal of Orthodontics, 2004, v. 26, n. 4, p. e16-e17 Abstract no.34en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0141-5387en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/94251-
dc.description.abstractAIM: The amount any individual can be expected to grow may or may not depend on the particular form of treatment (Johnston, 1999). The aim of this study was to investigate the apical-base change with various treatments of a Class II malocclusion SUBJECTS AND METHOD: Three patient groups were compared: (1) the ‘gold standard’ group: Edgewise therapy (Johnston, 1999), (2) Class II elastic group: 18 consecutive subjects, non-extraction with Begg, and (3) Headgear-functional appliance group: 18 consecutive subjects, headgear-Herbst and step-wise advancement of the mandible followed by a headgear-activator. Lateral cephalograms were obtained for all groups at the start of treatment (T0), and after 6 (T6), 12 (T12) and 18 (T18) months (groups 2 and 3), and after 24 months (group 1). RESULTS: The antero-posterior (A-P) distance had improved 2.3 mm*** in group 1 after 24 months. In group 2 it worsened 0.5 mm at T6, improved 0.4 mm at T12 and 1.1 mm** at T18. In group 3 it had improved 3.1 mm*** at T6, 5.6 mm*** at T12 and 6.3 mm*** at T18. At T24 the groups had 74, 41 and 36 per cent of A-P change versus the groups at T6, T12 and T18. Group 1 had 20 per cent of the A-P change of group 3 at T18. CONCLUSION: The choice of orthodontic device used for improvement of the apical base relationship in the treatment of Class II malocclusions seemingly matters to a clinically significant level. However for some orthodontic devices the treatment change of A-P distance might not differ significantly from that of growth only.-
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.titleTreatment essentials for Improvement of Jaw-Base Relationship in Class II subjectsen_HK
dc.typeConference_Paperen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0141-5387&volume=26&spage=No. 34, page e16&epage=&date=2004&atitle=Treatment+essentials+for+Improvement+of+Jaw-Base+Relationship+in+Class+II+subjectsen_HK
dc.identifier.emailHagg, EUO: euohagg@hkusua.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailRabie, ABM: rabie@hkusua.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityHagg, EUO=rp00020en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityRabie, ABM=rp00029en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ejo/26.4.e1-
dc.identifier.hkuros109972en_HK
dc.identifier.volume26en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats