Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Saudi Dent J ; 36(1): 66-71, 2024 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38375387

RESUMO

Objective: This study evaluated the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes for Class II malocclusion patients treated with Invisalign clear aligners with mandibular wings (IAMW). Methods: This retrospective study included 50 skeletal Class II patients treated with Invisalign clear aligner with mandibular wings. Records of 20 subjects were collected from the AAOF Legacy Collection (The Case Western Bolton Brush Growth Study) and were used as a control. The dental, skeletal, and facial soft tissue changes were assessed by digitizing and analyzing lateral cephalograms using Dolphin Imaging software (version 11.95 Premium; Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif). Paired t-tests and independent t-tests were used to assess the changes before and after and to compare between the IAMW and control groups. Results: The different measurements of the maxilla have shown that IAMW effect on the maxilla included minimal, non-significant retraction compared to the control group. The SNB and mandibular base position increased by 1.17° (±2.63) and 3.79 (±8.13), respectively. The mandible advanced significantly in the treatment group compared to the control group. Dentally, the lower incisors tipped slightly buccally, but the change was not significant (p > 0.05). The facial convexity angle decreased by 1.16° (±4.36). Conclusion: Invisalign clear aligner with mandibular advancer wings was able to correct the Class II malocclusion. This correction was mainly skeletal with some dental changes. This device can be used to address the growth modification problem in Class II malocclusion at the same time as addressing the other occlusal problems.

2.
Patient Prefer Adherence ; 13: 2119-2128, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31853175

RESUMO

Introduction: Pursuing an esthetically-pleasing orthodontic outcome, orthodontic patients must consider and choose from the different available options of orthodontic appliance. Practitioners need to be better informed of their customers' preferences to make better practice management decisions and satisfy their patients' needs. PURPOSE: To explore adult laypeople's perceptions of the attractiveness, acceptability, preference and economic value of different orthodontic appliances when they consider these appliances for themselves and for their children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional survey included 199 adults (110 females). The average age of participants was 27.7 years. Participants answered a questionnaire evaluating and comparing multiple smiling images of an adult wearing different orthodontic appliances. Participants rated each appliance for: (1) attractiveness on a Likert scale; (2) acceptability of having the appliance placed for themselves and their children (with a yes/no response); (3) preference (by ranking all appliances in order); and (4) economic value (by providing the additional amount they are willing to pay for each appliance for themselves and their children). RESULTS: We found a statistically significant difference in the attractiveness scores between the different orthodontic appliances (p< 0.0001). The most attractive appliances were clear aligners and lingual brackets. The least attractive appliances were colored o-tied-brackets followed by shaped-brackets. Clear aligners were the most acceptable appliances among our participants to have placed on themselves (86.9%) and their children (84.9%). Shaped brackets were the least acceptable appliances among our participants to have placed on themselves (24.1%) and their children (36.2%). The most preferred appliances were lingual brackets (39.2%), followed by clear aligners (34.17%). The least preferred appliances were colored o-tied-brackets (4%). Participants varied with regards to how much more they were willing to pay for each of the different orthodontic appliances. The majority were willing to pay more for clear aligners and lingual brackets to have them placed on themselves but not to have them placed on their children. CONCLUSION: Adults preferred more innovative esthetic appliances over traditional ones and were willing to pay more to have them placed on themselves but not on their children.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA