Author: Ruangrat Pawawongsak KomolpisPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Bicuspids
Languages : en
Pages : 232
Book Description
Cephalometric Comparison Between First Premolar and Seccond Premolar Extraction
Author: Ruangrat Pawawongsak KomolpisPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Bicuspids
Languages : en
Pages : 232
Book Description
A Cephalometric Comparison of Two Treatment Modalities for Class II Malocclusion
Author: Darcy Catherine CruikshankPublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 60
Book Description
An Occlusal and Cephalometric Analysis of Lower First and Second Premolar Extraction Effects
Author: Brittany ShearnPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Teeth
Languages : en
Pages : 194
Book Description
An Occlusal and Cephalometric Analysis of Upper First and Second Premolar Extraction Effects
Author: Hoe Boon OngPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Bicuspids
Languages : en
Pages : 212
Book Description
A Cephalometric Comparison of Treatment Effects in Second Molar and First Bicuspid Extraction Cases
Author: Gregory Patrick CampbellPublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 70
Book Description
First Premolar Extraction Therapy
Author: Jeffrey C. RaglandA Cephalometric Comparison of Maxillary Second Molar Extraction and Non Extraction Treatments in Class II Malocclusions
Author: Donihue WatersA Cephalometric Comparison of Class II Extraction Cases Treated with Tip-edge and Edgewise Techniques
Author: Maureen Nkosazana NgemaPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Cephalometry
Languages : en
Pages : 154
Book Description
The aim of this study was to compare cephalometric changes in skeletal and dento-alveolar parameters in cases treated by these two different orthodontic techniques. This was to be established by calculating and comparing the pre- and post-treatment cephalometric variables of cases treated with these techniques by looking at the skeletal and dento-alveolar measurements. Thirty Tip-Edge and thirty edgewise treated cases that had class II malocclusion, had extraction of four premolars and were treated with Class II elastics were selected. The gender distribution between the Tip-Edge and the edgewise techniques were 47% and 60% respectively for females. For males it was 53% in Tip-Edge and 40% in the edgewise techniques. The mean ages were 17.8 for Tip-Edge and 13.8 for edgewise techniques. The pre- and post-cephalometric radiographs were collected and the landmarks used were digitized using a Dolphin 10.5 Imaging and management solutions program
A Comparison of Second Molar and First Premolar Extraction Treatment Results
Author: Julie Ann StaggersMultiloop Edgewise Archwire Technique Vs. Extraction of Four First Premolars
Author: Chantol PeterkinPublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Book Description
Malocclusions involving anterior open bites (AOB) remain one of the most difficult subsets in orthodontics to treat and retain. Several treatment modalities have been proposed and executed by clinicians throughout the years, however, there is still no consensus on which non-surgical treatment modality is most efficient. This study compared the treatment efficiency and cephalometric outcomes that occurred (a) when treating AOB with the extraction of four first premolars compared to the use of the multiloop edgewise archwire (MEAW) technique without extractions and (b) between genders when using the MEAW technique only. Comparison 1: MEAW versus Extraction therapy in females: 11 females treated with MEAW (mean age 20.17 +/-6.48 years) were compared with 12 females treated with four first premolar extractions (mean age 15.92 +/- 2.84 years). Comparison 2: Males vs. females treated with MEAW: 11 males (mean age 20.48 +/- 4.51 years) were compared with 11 females (mean age 20.17 +/- 6.48 years). Pre-treatment and post-treatment patient records and lateral cephalograms were obtained and analyzed for comparing groups. Unpaired t-tests and Mann-Whitley U tests were used to compare differences between groups. The MEAW technique corrected anterior open bites 31% faster than extraction of four first premolars. There was no evidence of sex differences in the efficiency of addressing open bite malocclusion using MEAW.