Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of arch dimension changes in 1-phase vs 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jul; 136(1):65-74.AJ

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

We compared arch dimension changes in 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. This was a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted in the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Florida between 1990 and 2003.

METHODS

During phase 1 treatment, 86 subjects were treated with a bionator, 93 were treated with headgear/biteplane, and 81 served as the observation group. For phase 2, all subjects were then treated with full orthodontic appliances. Arch dimensions were followed; maxillary and mandibular alginate impressions were taken at baseline, end of early Class II treatment or observation, beginning of fixed appliance treatment, end of orthodontic treatment, and approximately 3 years posttreatment. Alginate impressions were taken of each dental arch at each data collection point. These were poured in orthodontic stone, trimmed, and photocopied from the occlusal aspect. These images were then scanned and measured.

RESULTS

Although differences between the treatment groups were found in both the maxillary and mandibular arches after phase 1, these differences were no longer evident by the end of full orthodontic treatment or after posttreatment retention.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in arch dimensions after 1-phase or 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthodontics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610-0444, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Language

eng

PubMed ID

19577150

Citation

Wortham, James R., et al. "Comparison of Arch Dimension Changes in 1-phase Vs 2-phase Treatment of Class II Malocclusion." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, vol. 136, no. 1, 2009, pp. 65-74.
Wortham JR, Dolce C, McGorray SP, et al. Comparison of arch dimension changes in 1-phase vs 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(1):65-74.
Wortham, J. R., Dolce, C., McGorray, S. P., Le, H., King, G. J., & Wheeler, T. T. (2009). Comparison of arch dimension changes in 1-phase vs 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 136(1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.020
Wortham JR, et al. Comparison of Arch Dimension Changes in 1-phase Vs 2-phase Treatment of Class II Malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(1):65-74. PubMed PMID: 19577150.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of arch dimension changes in 1-phase vs 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. AU - Wortham,James R, AU - Dolce,Calogero, AU - McGorray,Susan P, AU - Le,Huong, AU - King,Gregory J, AU - Wheeler,Timothy T, PY - 2006/12/18/received PY - 2007/06/08/revised PY - 2007/06/19/accepted PY - 2009/7/7/entrez PY - 2009/7/7/pubmed PY - 2009/7/23/medline SP - 65 EP - 74 JF - American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics JO - Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop VL - 136 IS - 1 N2 - INTRODUCTION: We compared arch dimension changes in 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. This was a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted in the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Florida between 1990 and 2003. METHODS: During phase 1 treatment, 86 subjects were treated with a bionator, 93 were treated with headgear/biteplane, and 81 served as the observation group. For phase 2, all subjects were then treated with full orthodontic appliances. Arch dimensions were followed; maxillary and mandibular alginate impressions were taken at baseline, end of early Class II treatment or observation, beginning of fixed appliance treatment, end of orthodontic treatment, and approximately 3 years posttreatment. Alginate impressions were taken of each dental arch at each data collection point. These were poured in orthodontic stone, trimmed, and photocopied from the occlusal aspect. These images were then scanned and measured. RESULTS: Although differences between the treatment groups were found in both the maxillary and mandibular arches after phase 1, these differences were no longer evident by the end of full orthodontic treatment or after posttreatment retention. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in arch dimensions after 1-phase or 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. SN - 1097-6752 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/19577150/Comparison_of_arch_dimension_changes_in_1_phase_vs_2_phase_treatment_of_Class_II_malocclusion_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0889-5406(09)00217-0 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -