RESUMEN
This paper describes a case of a 13-year-old patient with a systemic hypersensitivity reaction to orthodontic treatment. Her allergy was investigated resulting in a provisional diagnosis of pressure urticaria. The aetiology, diagnosis and clinical management of allergic reactions to dental procedures are discussed.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades de las Encías/etiología , Enfermedades de los Labios/etiología , Aparatos Ortodóncicos/efectos adversos , Urticaria/etiología , Adolescente , Dermatitis por Contacto/etiología , Edema/etiología , Aparatos de Tracción Extraoral/efectos adversos , Femenino , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Cierre del Espacio Ortodóncico/efectos adversos , Cierre del Espacio Ortodóncico/instrumentación , Extracción Dental/efectos adversosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance for the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. This was a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial with subjects from 14 orthodontic clinics in the United Kingdom. METHODS: The study included 174 children aged 8 to 10 years with Class II Division 1 malocclusion; they were randomly allocated to receive treatment with a Twin-block appliance or to an initially untreated control group. The subjects were then followed until all orthodontic treatment was completed. Final skeletal pattern, number of attendances, duration of orthodontic treatment, extraction rate, cost of treatment, and the child's self-concept were considered. RESULTS: At the end of the 10-year study, 141 patients either completed treatment or accepted their occlusion. Data analysis showed that there was no differences between those who received early Twin-block treatment and those who had 1 course of treatment in adolescence with respect to skeletal pattern, extraction rate, and self-esteem. Those who had early treatment had more attendances, received treatment for longer times, and incurred more costs than the adolescent treatment group. They also had significantly poorer final dental occlusion. CONCLUSIONS: Twin-block treatment when a child is 8 to 9 years old has no advantages over treatment started at an average age of 12.4 years. However, the cost of early treatment to the patient in terms of attendances and length of appliance wear is increased.
Asunto(s)
Maloclusión Clase II de Angle/terapia , Aparatos Ortodóncicos Funcionales , Ortodoncia Interceptiva/instrumentación , Adolescente , Factores de Edad , Cefalometría , Niño , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Dentición Mixta , Femenino , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Ortodoncia Interceptiva/economía , Autoimagen , Resultado del Tratamiento , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to assess whether early Twin-block appliance treatment improves the attractiveness of Class II profiles and to determine the orofacial features of a profile that most influence the perception of attractiveness. METHODS: Silhouetted profiles of 20 treated patients and 20 untreated controls randomly selected from 174 subjects (ages, 8-10 years) of a randomized, controlled trial into the effectiveness of early Class II treatment were assessed by 30 children (ages, 10-11 years) and 24 teaching staff using a 5-point Likert scale. Independent samples t tests were used to compare attractiveness ratings between the treated and untreated groups. Linear regression was used to determine the features defining attractiveness. RESULTS: Early orthodontic treatment resulted in improved perceptions of facial profile attractiveness. Profiles were likely to be rated as attractive if the overjet was smaller (P = 0.001) and no teeth showed (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Profile silhouettes of children who had received early orthodontic treatment for Class II malocclusion were perceived to be more attractive by peers than those of children who did not receive treatment.