東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Comparison of Vertical Molar Eruptio...

Pugh, Alexis F.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Comparison of Vertical Molar Eruption Using the Carriere Motion Distalizer with Lingual Arch and Essix Appliances.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Comparison of Vertical Molar Eruption Using the Carriere Motion Distalizer with Lingual Arch and Essix Appliances./
Author:	Pugh, Alexis F.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2020,
Description:	60 p.
Notes:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 82-01.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International82-01.
Subject:	Dentistry. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28022866
ISBN:	9798662410534

Comparison of Vertical Molar Eruption Using the Carriere Motion Distalizer with Lingual Arch and Essix Appliances.
Pugh, Alexis F.

Comparison of Vertical Molar Eruption Using the Carriere Motion Distalizer with Lingual Arch and Essix Appliances. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2020 - 60 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 82-01.

Thesis (M.Sc.D.)--The University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston, 2020.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar treatment effects, specifically in the vertical dimension, of the Carriere Motion Distalizer in two groups of individuals with different mandibular anchorage settings: one with an Essix appliance and one with a lower lingual holding arch (LLHA).MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 40 patients with lateral cephalometric radiographs taken both pretreatment (Tl) and after distalization (T2) with the Carriere Motion Distalizer. All 40 patients were treated with the Carriere Motion Distalizer with the only variable being the mandibular anchorage: one group with an Essix retainer (Essix Group, n=18), and the other with lower lingual holding arch (LLHA Group, n=22). All Tl and T2 lateral cephalometric radiographs were measured by a single clinician. All analyses were performed using R statistical software (R Core Team 2018). Independent sample t-tests were performed for intergroup comparisons. Level of significance was established at P < 0.05.RESULTS: There were significant treatment effects in both the Essix and LLHA groups (P < 0.05, t-test, Table 1). Significant reduction of the Wits measurement was seen in both Essix and LLHA treatment groups, denoted by a mean treatment change of approximately -1 mm and -2 mm, respectively. The ANS-Y and A-Y measurements were significant in the Essix group with a mean change of +1.5 mm and +1.2 mm, respectively. OP-SN and OP-MP were significantly increased in the LLHA group by 3 degrees and 2 degrees, respectively. OP-SN and OP-MP were also increased in the Essix group, by 1.8 degrees and 0.5 degrees, respectively. SN-MP, N-Me, N-ANS, and ANS-Me were significant in both groups: all means show significant treatment increases in these measurements. Both groups showed significant improvement in overjet and overbite. Both groups also showed significant movement of upper cuspids with an increase in U3-PP (mm) and U3-PP (degrees). The lower incisor proclination and procumbency, L1-MP (degrees) and L1-Y, were significantly increased in both groups, with a marginally statistically significant difference of the mean change in L1-MP (degrees) between groups. L1-MP increased 2 degrees in the Essix group, while the LLHA group showed a 5-degree increase. Both the Essix and LLHA groups showed lower molar extrusion with an increase of L6-MP of 1.2 mm and 1.7 mm, respectively. Both groups also showed notable changes in upper molar position, U6-PP (mm) and U6-PP (degrees). In the LLHA group, significant maxillary molar distalization was achieved with a reduction of U6-Y by 1.6 mm, whereas in the Essix group, there was significant mesialization of the lower first molar with an increase in L6-Y of 1.9 mm.CONCLUSIONS: The Carriere Motion Distalizer appliance is a successful option in the management of Class II malocclusion dependent on excellent patient compliance. When comparing the control of vertical dimension between the Essix retainer and LLHA, there is no statistically significant difference. Regardless of anchorage type, the most obvious skeletal treatment effect was an increase in facial height; however, the overall treatment effects were mostly dentoalveolar in nature, as expected with the use of Class II elastics. Both anchorage options allowed for vertical molar eruption producing an overall increase in the occlusal plane, therefore opening the bite. Use of a full coverage Essix retainer, however, did show a clinically significant advantage in minimizing lower incisor proclination as compared to a LLHA.

ISBN: 9798662410534Subjects--Topical Terms:

828971
Dentistry.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Carriere motion distalizer

Comparison of Vertical Molar Eruption Using the Carriere Motion Distalizer with Lingual Arch and Essix Appliances.
LDR:04765nmm a2200337 4500 001 2275355
005 20210119090710.5
008 220723s2020 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798662410534
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28022866
035 $a AAI28022866
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Pugh, Alexis F. $3 3553604
245 1 0 $a Comparison of Vertical Molar Eruption Using the Carriere Motion Distalizer with Lingual Arch and Essix Appliances.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2020
300 $a 60 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 82-01.
500 $a Advisor: English, Jeryl D.;Colville, Clark D.
502 $a Thesis (M.Sc.D.)--The University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston, 2020.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar treatment effects, specifically in the vertical dimension, of the Carriere Motion Distalizer in two groups of individuals with different mandibular anchorage settings: one with an Essix appliance and one with a lower lingual holding arch (LLHA).MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 40 patients with lateral cephalometric radiographs taken both pretreatment (Tl) and after distalization (T2) with the Carriere Motion Distalizer. All 40 patients were treated with the Carriere Motion Distalizer with the only variable being the mandibular anchorage: one group with an Essix retainer (Essix Group, n=18), and the other with lower lingual holding arch (LLHA Group, n=22). All Tl and T2 lateral cephalometric radiographs were measured by a single clinician. All analyses were performed using R statistical software (R Core Team 2018). Independent sample t-tests were performed for intergroup comparisons. Level of significance was established at P < 0.05.RESULTS: There were significant treatment effects in both the Essix and LLHA groups (P < 0.05, t-test, Table 1). Significant reduction of the Wits measurement was seen in both Essix and LLHA treatment groups, denoted by a mean treatment change of approximately -1 mm and -2 mm, respectively. The ANS-Y and A-Y measurements were significant in the Essix group with a mean change of +1.5 mm and +1.2 mm, respectively. OP-SN and OP-MP were significantly increased in the LLHA group by 3 degrees and 2 degrees, respectively. OP-SN and OP-MP were also increased in the Essix group, by 1.8 degrees and 0.5 degrees, respectively. SN-MP, N-Me, N-ANS, and ANS-Me were significant in both groups: all means show significant treatment increases in these measurements. Both groups showed significant improvement in overjet and overbite. Both groups also showed significant movement of upper cuspids with an increase in U3-PP (mm) and U3-PP (degrees). The lower incisor proclination and procumbency, L1-MP (degrees) and L1-Y, were significantly increased in both groups, with a marginally statistically significant difference of the mean change in L1-MP (degrees) between groups. L1-MP increased 2 degrees in the Essix group, while the LLHA group showed a 5-degree increase. Both the Essix and LLHA groups showed lower molar extrusion with an increase of L6-MP of 1.2 mm and 1.7 mm, respectively. Both groups also showed notable changes in upper molar position, U6-PP (mm) and U6-PP (degrees). In the LLHA group, significant maxillary molar distalization was achieved with a reduction of U6-Y by 1.6 mm, whereas in the Essix group, there was significant mesialization of the lower first molar with an increase in L6-Y of 1.9 mm.CONCLUSIONS: The Carriere Motion Distalizer appliance is a successful option in the management of Class II malocclusion dependent on excellent patient compliance. When comparing the control of vertical dimension between the Essix retainer and LLHA, there is no statistically significant difference. Regardless of anchorage type, the most obvious skeletal treatment effect was an increase in facial height; however, the overall treatment effects were mostly dentoalveolar in nature, as expected with the use of Class II elastics. Both anchorage options allowed for vertical molar eruption producing an overall increase in the occlusal plane, therefore opening the bite. Use of a full coverage Essix retainer, however, did show a clinically significant advantage in minimizing lower incisor proclination as compared to a LLHA.
590 $a School code: 1707.
650 4 $a Dentistry. $3 828971
653 $a Carriere motion distalizer
653 $a Class II correction
653 $a Class II malocclusion
653 $a Treatment effects
690 $a 0567
710 2 $a The University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston. $b Orthodontics. $3 3553605
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 82-01.
790 $a 1707
791 $a M.Sc.D.
792 $a 2020
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28022866