Comparison of the Treatment Effects of Two Intrusive Mechanics: Connecticut Intrusion Arch and Mini-Implant

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorSultan Ölmez Gürlen
dc.contributor.authorIşıl Aras
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-26T19:40:24Z
dc.date.available2019-10-26T19:40:24Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.departmentEge Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractBu çalışmanın amacı farklı iki keser intruzyon mekaniğinin tedavi etkinliği ve kök re- zorpsiyonu miktarı yönünden karşılaştırılmasıdır. GGeerreeçç vvee YYöönntteemmlleerren_US
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to compare the treatment efficiencies and root resorption amounts of two different incisor intrusion mechanics. Material and Methods: Thirty-two patients with deep bite and elongated maxillary incisors were randomly allocated two treatment groups: Connecticut intrusion arch group (CG) or Mini-implant group (MG). In both groups approximately 60 g of force applied between central and lateral incisors. Dentoalveolar effects were studied via cephalograms taken before and after 5 months of intrusion while root resorption was assessed using periapical roentgens. Paired t-test was used to evaluate differences within groups. The changes observed in both groups were compared by using independent t-test. Results: While the overbite reduced significantly in both groups (p<0.001), this amount was greater in MG (p<0.01). The center of resistance (CR) of incisors showed significant apical movement (p<0.001) in both groups with greater values observed in MG (P<0.05). The labial tipping and sagittal advancement of the incisor edge was significant in the treatment groups (p<0.001); these changes were greater in MG. Apex of the central incisor displayed significant backwards movement (p<0.05) with no intergroup difference (p>0.05). Incisors in both groups showed significant root resorption (P<0.000) which was significantly greater in MG compared to CG (P<0.05). Conclusion: Mini-implants were more efficient in bite-opening. However they also led to more root resorption and labial tipping compared with the Connecticut intrusion arch.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage201en_US
dc.identifier.issn1300-7734
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage195en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://app.trdizin.gov.tr/makale/TWpnek56SXhNUT09
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/11867
dc.identifier.volume22en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakTR-Dizinen_US
dc.language.isotren_US
dc.relation.ispartofTürkiye Klinikleri Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisien_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Ulusal Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US]
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectDiş Hekimliğien_US
dc.titleComparison of the Treatment Effects of Two Intrusive Mechanics: Connecticut Intrusion Arch and Mini-Implanten_US
dc.title.alternativeİki Müdahaleli Mekaniğin Tedavi Etkilerinin Karşılaştırılması: Connecticut Saldırı Kemeri ve Mini-İmplanten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

TR-Dizin İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu