ISSN: 1859 - 2872
Evaluation of anchorage and control vertical facial class II maloclusion skeletal patients with extraction premolars
Main Article Content
Keywords
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effects of anchorage and control vertical facial class II malocclusion skeletal with extraction premolars on 3 groups: Hyperdivergent, normodivergent, hypodivergent. Subiect and method: A descriptive study by evaluate pre-treatment and post-treatment cephalometric radiography of 69 class II malocclusion skeletal with extraction premolars patients (15 male, 54 female), at Department of Orthodontics of Ha Noi Central Odonto-Stomatology Hospital to September 2022 were recuited. Result: The average of age was 24.5 years. Hypodivergent group had 12 patients, hyperdivergent group had 27 patients, normodivergent group had 30 patients. Clinical characteristics of 3 groups almost were similar except that angle between mandibular related cranial base (hypodivergent group 25.17° ± 2.65°, hyperdivergent group 40.22° ± 2.24°, normodivergent group 33.92° ± 2.14°). The effects of maximum anchorage in 3 group were the same so the first molar of maxillary were mesially minimum and no significant differences with p<0.05. Post-treatment, hypodivergent group had GoGnSN increased 2.17° ± 2.75°, hyperdivergent GoGnSN decreased -1.05° ± 1.61°, normodivergent GoGnSN change a little. Conclusion: Miniimplant had good effect to make maximum anchorage in extracted premolars treated class II maloclusion skeletal cases. Miniimplant had controlled vertical face by adjusting the vertical positions of the molars and the incisors made rotation mandibular and changed lower facial height (with hypodivergent group the molars were emergented, incisors were intrusived so GoGnSn increased, ANS-Me increased; with hyperdivergent group the molars were intrusived and incisors were uprighted so GoGnSN decreased, ANS-Me decreased, with normodivergent group the vertical positions of the molars and the incisors changed a litte, and GoGnSN ,ANS-Me had no significant differences were observed in the pre-treatment and the posttreatment skeletal measurements.
Article Details
References
2. Đặng Thị Thu Hương (2020) Nhu cầu điều trị nắn chỉnh răng và các yếu tố liên quan trong đối tượng học sinh từ 12-15 tuổi tại Hà Nội. Luận văn thạc sĩ, Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội.
3. Olkun HK, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Uçkan SJIJoER, Health P (2019) Orthognathic surgery treatment need in a Turkish adult population: a retrospective study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(11): 1881. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16111881.
4. Rogers K, Campbell PM, Tadlock L, Schneiderman E, Buschang PHJTAO (2018) Treatment changes of hypo-and hyperdivergent Class II Herbst patients. Angle Orthod 88(1): 3-9
5. Liu Y, Yang Zj, Zhou J et al (2020) Comparison of anchorage efficiency of orthodontic mini-implant and conventional anchorage reinforcement in patients requiring maximum orthodontic anchorage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice 20(2): 101401
6. Sung S-J, Jang G-W, Chun Y-S, Moon Y-SJAJoO, Orthopedics D (2010) Effective en-masse retraction design with orthodontic mini-implant anchorage: a finite element analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137(5): 648-657. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.06.036.
7. Upadhyay M, Nanda R (2020) Biomechanics principles in mini-implant driven orthodontics. In book: Temporary Anchorage Devices in Orthodontics: 3-20. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-323-60933-3.00001-6.
Article Sidebar
