Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand


Comparative cephalometric evaluation of Class II malocclusion treatment with First Class distalizer in conventional and skeletal anchorage

Full text
Author(s):
Roberto Henrique da Costa Grec
Total Authors: 1
Document type: Master's Dissertation
Press: Bauru.
Institution: Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru (FOB/SDB)
Defense date:
Examining board members:
Jose Fernando Castanha Henriques; Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida; Arnaldo Pinzan
Advisor: Jose Fernando Castanha Henriques
Abstract

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the dental, skeletal and soft tissue changes in youngsters with Class II malocclusion treated with First Class distalizer in two different types of anchorage. Thirty patients were included and divided, randomly, in two groups of 15. G1 (5 boys and 10 girls) that received distalizers with conventional anchorage (Nance button) and G2 (10 boys and 5 girls) that received distalizers with skeletal anchorage supported in two palatal mini-implants, average age of 13.00 and 13.28 years old, respectively. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before and after molar distalization in order to the cephalometric analysis. Statistical analysis was performed by dependent t test to verify the changes occurred in the same group and by independent t test to verify the difference between the groups. The systematic and casual errors were calculated as well. The mean treatment period was 4.51 and 6.28 months for G1 and G2, respectively. Both groups showed significant dental changes with distalization (G1=2.39 mm; G2=2.21 mm), distal tipping (G1=10.51º; G2=4.49º) and intrusion (G1=0.53 mm; G2=0.10 mm) of maxillary first molars, just intrusion in G2 was not significant. Anchorage loss showed similar in both groups with significant mesialization (G1=2.78 mm; G2=3.11 mm) and mesial tipping (G1=4.95°; G2=4.69°) of maxillary second premolars, significant protrusion (G1=1.55 mm; G2=1.94 mm) and proclination (G1=5.78°; G2=3.13°) of maxillary incisors and significant increase in overjet (G1=1.07 mm; G2=0.81 mm). Distalization mechanic did not interfere in skeletal and soft tissue measurements of patients. In both groups, the First Class distalizer corrected the molar relationship, however it showed anchorage loss effects in maxillary premolars and incisors even when associated to mini-implants. There was no significant difference between the groups on dental linear changes, however the dental angular changes were significantly lower in skeletal anchorage group. (AU)

FAPESP's process: 09/04843-7 - Evaluation of Dentoskeletal changes in Young Patients with Class II Malocclusion Treated with First Class Distalizers Appliances
Grantee:Roberto Henrique da Costa Grec
Support Opportunities: Scholarships in Brazil - Master