File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Does the mode of mandibular advancement affect the treatment effects on molar relationship?

TitleDoes the mode of mandibular advancement affect the treatment effects on molar relationship?
Authors
Issue Date2006
PublisherOxford University Press
Citation
The 81st Congress of European Orthodontic Society, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 3–7 June 2005. In The European Journal of Orthodontics, 2006, v. 28 n. 2, p. e76-e77 Abstract no.161 How to Cite?
AbstractAIM: This prospective clinical study compared the molar relationship effect between mandibular stepwise advancement and maximum jumping. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: The headgear activator group (HGA-S) had stepwise advancement (n = 24, mean age = 11.9 ± 1.2 years) of 4 mm every 3 months with individualised bite opening following the condylar translatory pathway, whilst the HGA-M group (n = 31, mean age = 11.2 ± 1.5 years) had maximum jumping with edge-to-edge 6 mm interincisal opening. Active treatment was 12 months (T0-T12) for the HGA-S group and 6 months (T0-T6) for the HGA-M group followed by 6 months (T6-T12) of retention. Molar relationship effects were analysed from lateral cephalograms (Pancherz, 1982) taken at start of treatment (T0), 6 months (T6) and 12 months of treatment (T12). The results were adjusted to similar observation lengths. Growth changes were obtained from the pre-treatment HGA-M group. RESULTS: The molar relationship was unchanged with 6 months’ growth. With the initial 6 months’ treatment (T0-T6) the molar relationship improved 2.8 mm (P < 0.001) and 3.2 mm (P < 0.001) with HGA-M. With HGA-S, jaw base relationship improved 2.1 mm (P < 0.001) whereas the molars were unaffected. With HGA-M, jaw-base relationship improved (1.5 mm; P < 0.01), maxillary molars distalized (–1.1 mm; P < 0.01) and mandibular molars mesialized (0.6 mm; P < 0.01). During the second 6 months (T6-T12) of active treatment, the molar relationship improved with HGA-S (1.9 mm; P < 0.001) mainly due to an improved jaw base relationship (1.4 mm; P < 0.05). After HGA-M retention, the molar relationship was unaffected, due to an insignificant jaw base relationship effect and relapse of the maxillary molars. During the total 12-month observation period, the effect on the molar relationship was significantly larger (P < 0.05) with HGA-S than HGA-M. CONCLUSION: With mandibular stepwise advancement there seem to be more skeletal and less dental effects contributing to the improved molar relationship.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/94728
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.44
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.090

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHagg, EUOen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWey, MCen_HK
dc.contributor.authorBendeus, SAMen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-25T15:40:08Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-25T15:40:08Z-
dc.date.issued2006en_HK
dc.identifier.citationThe 81st Congress of European Orthodontic Society, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 3–7 June 2005. In The European Journal of Orthodontics, 2006, v. 28 n. 2, p. e76-e77 Abstract no.161-
dc.identifier.issn0141-5387-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/94728-
dc.description.abstractAIM: This prospective clinical study compared the molar relationship effect between mandibular stepwise advancement and maximum jumping. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: The headgear activator group (HGA-S) had stepwise advancement (n = 24, mean age = 11.9 ± 1.2 years) of 4 mm every 3 months with individualised bite opening following the condylar translatory pathway, whilst the HGA-M group (n = 31, mean age = 11.2 ± 1.5 years) had maximum jumping with edge-to-edge 6 mm interincisal opening. Active treatment was 12 months (T0-T12) for the HGA-S group and 6 months (T0-T6) for the HGA-M group followed by 6 months (T6-T12) of retention. Molar relationship effects were analysed from lateral cephalograms (Pancherz, 1982) taken at start of treatment (T0), 6 months (T6) and 12 months of treatment (T12). The results were adjusted to similar observation lengths. Growth changes were obtained from the pre-treatment HGA-M group. RESULTS: The molar relationship was unchanged with 6 months’ growth. With the initial 6 months’ treatment (T0-T6) the molar relationship improved 2.8 mm (P < 0.001) and 3.2 mm (P < 0.001) with HGA-M. With HGA-S, jaw base relationship improved 2.1 mm (P < 0.001) whereas the molars were unaffected. With HGA-M, jaw-base relationship improved (1.5 mm; P < 0.01), maxillary molars distalized (–1.1 mm; P < 0.01) and mandibular molars mesialized (0.6 mm; P < 0.01). During the second 6 months (T6-T12) of active treatment, the molar relationship improved with HGA-S (1.9 mm; P < 0.001) mainly due to an improved jaw base relationship (1.4 mm; P < 0.05). After HGA-M retention, the molar relationship was unaffected, due to an insignificant jaw base relationship effect and relapse of the maxillary molars. During the total 12-month observation period, the effect on the molar relationship was significantly larger (P < 0.05) with HGA-S than HGA-M. CONCLUSION: With mandibular stepwise advancement there seem to be more skeletal and less dental effects contributing to the improved molar relationship.-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherOxford University Press-
dc.relation.ispartofThe European Journal of Orthodonticsen_HK
dc.titleDoes the mode of mandibular advancement affect the treatment effects on molar relationship?en_HK
dc.typeConference_Paperen_HK
dc.identifier.emailHagg, EUO: euohagg@hkusua.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailBendeus, SAM: sambende@hkusua.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityHagg, EUO=rp00020en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ejo/cjl019-
dc.identifier.hkuros114436en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats