139 resultados para RELAPSE DEFINITION
Resumo:
Introduction: The objective of this study was to cephalometrically compare the stability of complete Class II malocclusion treatment with 2 or 4 premolar extractions after a mean period of 9.35 years. Methods: A sample of 57 records from patients with complete Class II malocclusion was selected and divided into 2 groups. Group 1 consisted of 30 patients with an initial mean age of 12.87 years treated with extraction of 2 maxillary premolars. Group 2 consisted of 27 patients with an initial mean age of 13.72 years treated with extraction of 4 premolars. T tests were used to compare the groups` initial cephalometric characteristics and posttreatment changes. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the correlation between treatment and posttreatment dental-relationship changes. Results: During the posttreatment period, both groups had similar behavior, except that group 1 had a statistically greater maxillary forward displacement and a greater increase in the apical-base relationship than group 2. On the other hand, group 2 had a statistically greater molar-relationship relapse toward Class II. There were significant positive correlations between the amounts of treatment and posttreatment dentoalveolar-relationship changes. Conclusions: Treatment of complete Class II malocclusions with 2 maxillary premolar extractions or 4 premolar extractions had similar long-term posttreatment stability. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:154.e1-154.e10)
Resumo:
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cephalometric and occlusal changes, the functional occlusion, and the dentinal sensitivity of anterior open-bite treatment with occlusal adjustment. Methods: The sample comprised 20 patients who experienced relapse of the anterior open bite (mean, -1.06 mm). Occlusal adjustment was performed until a positive overbite was established. Cephalometric changes were evaluated on lateral cephalograms taken before and after the occlusal adjustment. The functional occlusion analysis consisted of evaluating immediate anterior and canine guidance and the number of teeth in contact before and after the procedure. Dentinal sensitivity was evaluated before, shortly after, and 4.61 months after the occlusal adjustment. Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric changes and the number of teeth in contact were compared with dependent t tests. Percentages of anterior and canine guidance before and after the adjustment procedure were compared with the McNemar test. To compare dentinal sensitivity at several stages, the nonparametric Friedman test was used, followed by the Wilcoxon test. Results: Significant increases in overbite and mandibular protrusion were seen, as were significant decreases in apical base discrepancy, facial convexity, and growth pattern angles. The percentages of immediate anterior and canine guidance increased significantly, as did the number of teeth with occlusal contacts. Dentinal sensitivity increased immediately after the adjustment but decreased to normal levels after 4.61 months. Conclusions: Occlusal adjustment is a viable treatment alternative for some open-bite patients; it establishes positive vertical overbite and improves the functional occlusion with only transient dentinal sensitivity.
Resumo:
Introduction: In premolar extraction cases, root parallelism is recommended to preserve the stability of space closures. The influence of the degree of root parallelism on relapse of tooth extraction spaces has been a controversial topic in the literature. The aim of this study was to compare the angle between the long axes of the canine and the second premolarin patients with and without stability of extraction-space closures. Methods: A sample of 56 patients, treated with 4 premolar extractions, was divided into 2 groups: group 1, consisting of 25 patients with reopening of extraction spaces; and group 2, consisting of 31 patients without reopening of extraction spaces. Panoramic radiographs of each patient were analyzed at the posttreatment and 1-year posttreatment stages. The data were statistically analyzed by using chi-square tests, t tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: The results showed that the groups did not differ regarding the angle between the canine and the second premolar, and there was no correlation between angular changes and reopening of extraction spaces, showing that dental angular changes are not determining factors for relapse, and other factors should be investigated. Conclusions: The final angle and the posttreatment changes observed in the angle between the long axes of the canine and the second premolar showed no influence on the relapse of extraction spaces. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: e505-e510)
Resumo:
Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term stability of open-bite surgical-orthodontic correction. Methods: Thirty-nine patients at an initial mean age of 20.83 years were evaluated cephalometrically at pretreatment (T1), immediately after treatment (T2), and at the last recall (T3), with a mean follow-up time of 8.22 years. The surgical protocol included single-jaw or double-jaw surgery. Because the patients had different anteroposterior malocclusions, the sample was divided into a Class I and Class II (I-II) subgroup (3 Class I, 20 Class II malocclusion patients) and a Class III subgroup (16 patients). The dentoskeletal characteristics of the total sample and the subgroups were compared at T1, T2, and T3 with dependent analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Overbite relapse in the posttreatment period was statistically significant in the whole sample and the Class I-II subgroup. Fourteen patients of the whole sample (35.9%) had clinically significant open-bite relapse (negative overbite). Conclusions: There was a statistically significant open-bite relapse in the overall sample and in the Class I-II subgroup. The clinically significant values of long-term open-bite correction stability were 64.11%, 47.82%, and 87.50% in the overall sample, the Class I-II subgroup, and the Class III subgroup, respectively. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:254.e1-254.e10)