File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Choice of functional appliance therapy - Is there any difference in treatment outcome?

TitleChoice of functional appliance therapy - Is there any difference in treatment outcome?
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. e116 Abstract no.248 How to Cite?
AbstractAIM: To compare changes during treatment and follow-up of skeletal Class II malocclusion subjects treated with either a removable or a fixed functional appliance. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A series of lateral cephalograms obtained from a group of consecutive male patients treated with headgear-activator [removable functional appliance (RFA) group] for 12 months was compared with a matched group treated with a Herbst appliance for 6 months, followed by ‘retention’ with an Andresen Activator for six months [fixed functional appliance (FFA) group]. The patients were then followed for a further 24 months. Lateral cephalograms were obtained at start of treatment (T0) and after 6 (T6) and 12 (T12) months of treatment, and after another 24 months (T36). Interpolations were made to obtain data representing exactly the same length of observations periods. RESULTS: There were significantly more pronounced changes with the FFA than with the RFA during the initial 6 months of treatment (T0-T6). After 36 months (T0-T36) of treatment and observation, the maxilla tended to become retruded (P = 0.052) in the RFA group, whereas there was no significant change in maxillary prognathism in the FFA group, the difference between the two groups being statistically significant (P < 0.05). On the other hand the increase of mandibular prognathism in the former group was only marginally statistically significant (P = 0.052) and highly significant in the later group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with removable and fixed orthodontic devices not only modifies growth in the short-term, but also seem to have the potential to cause permanent changes in the prognathism of both jaws.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/94794
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.44
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.090

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPhan, KLen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHagg, EUOen_HK
dc.contributor.authorRabie, ABMen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-25T15:42:07Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-25T15:42:07Z-
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. e116 Abstract no.248en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0141-5387-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/94794-
dc.description.abstractAIM: To compare changes during treatment and follow-up of skeletal Class II malocclusion subjects treated with either a removable or a fixed functional appliance. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A series of lateral cephalograms obtained from a group of consecutive male patients treated with headgear-activator [removable functional appliance (RFA) group] for 12 months was compared with a matched group treated with a Herbst appliance for 6 months, followed by ‘retention’ with an Andresen Activator for six months [fixed functional appliance (FFA) group]. The patients were then followed for a further 24 months. Lateral cephalograms were obtained at start of treatment (T0) and after 6 (T6) and 12 (T12) months of treatment, and after another 24 months (T36). Interpolations were made to obtain data representing exactly the same length of observations periods. RESULTS: There were significantly more pronounced changes with the FFA than with the RFA during the initial 6 months of treatment (T0-T6). After 36 months (T0-T36) of treatment and observation, the maxilla tended to become retruded (P = 0.052) in the RFA group, whereas there was no significant change in maxillary prognathism in the FFA group, the difference between the two groups being statistically significant (P < 0.05). On the other hand the increase of mandibular prognathism in the former group was only marginally statistically significant (P = 0.052) and highly significant in the later group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with removable and fixed orthodontic devices not only modifies growth in the short-term, but also seem to have the potential to cause permanent changes in the prognathism of both jaws.-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherOxford University Press-
dc.relation.ispartofThe European Journal of Orthodonticsen_HK
dc.titleChoice of functional appliance therapy - Is there any difference in treatment outcome?en_HK
dc.typeConference_Paperen_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/cjl019-
dc.identifier.hkuros110906en_HK
dc.identifier.epage127en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats