Ortodontik tedavi sonrasında kullanılan farklı pekiştirme apareylerinin etkinliklerinin dijital modelleme yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2017
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İnönü Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı pekiştirme apareylerinin, ortodontik tedavileri farklı planlanan bireylerde tedavi başarısına olan etkisinin değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma, İnönü Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı'nda tedavi edilen 72 bireyde yürütülmüştür. Araştırma grupları, 1. Grup, çekimsiz-Essix; 2. Grup, çekimli-Essix; 3. Grup çekimsiz-SP; 4. Grup, çekimli-SP; 5. Grup, çekimsiz-Hawley; 6. Grup çekimli-Hawley olarak belirlenmiştir. Dijital model kayıtları tedavi başı (T0), tedavi sonu (T1), pekiştirmenin 3. ayı (T2), pekiştirmenin 6. ayı (T3) ve pekiştirmenin 12. ayı (T4) olarak 5 adettir. Bulgular: Dijital modeller üzerinde üst ve alt çenede yapılan ölçümlerde alt gruplar arasında T0, T1, T2, T3 ve T4 dönemlerinde overjet, overbite, köpek dişleri ve birinci büyük azılar arası genişlik ve ark derinliği ortalamalarında fark bulunamamıştır (p>0,05). Çekimli ve çekimsiz tedavi edilen bireylerde köpek dişleri arası genişlik tedavi ile arttırılmış ve pekiştirme döneminde korunmuştur. Çekimli tedavi edilen bireylerde birinci büyük azılar arası genişlik ve ark derinliği, çekimsiz tedavi edilen bireylerden düşüktür. 3. Grup'ta T4 döneminde, alt kesici çapraşıklığı 1. Grup ve 5. Grup'tan istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede düşüktür. Çekimli tedavi edilen bireylerde, kullanılan pekiştirme apareyleri arasında kesici çapraşıklığında istatistiksel olarak fark yoktur. Sonuç: Çekimsiz yapılan ortodontik tedavilerde, kesici stabilitesi için özellikle alt kesicilerde SP kullanımı önerilmektedir. Çekimli tedavilerde Essix, SP ve Hawley kullanımında kesici stabilitesinde fark bulunmamaktadır.
Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different retention apliances on the success of treatment in individuals with differently planned orthodontic treatments. Material and method: This study was carried out in 72 patients who were treated in the Orthodontics Department of Dentistry Faculty of Inönü University. Research groups were identified as 1st Group, nonextraction-Essix; 2nd Group, extraction-Essix; 3rd Group nonextraction-SP; 4th Group, extraction-SP; 5th Group, nonextraction-Hawley; 6th Group extraction-Hawley. Digital model records are 5 as head of treatment (T0), end of treatment (T1), 3rd months of retention (T2), 6th months of retention (T3) and 12th months of retention (T4). Results: No significant differences were found in overjet, overbite, intercanine and first intermolar width and arch depth among the subgroups in the upper and lower jaws measurements on the digital models in the T0, T1, T2, T3 and T4 periods (p>0,05). In the individuals treated with extraction and nonextraction, intercanine distance was increased by treatment and protected during the retention period. In the individuals treated with extraction, first intermolar distance and arch depth were lower than the individuals treated nonextraction. In 3rd Group, the lower incisors crowding was statistically significantly lower than 1st Group and 5th Group in T4 period. There is no statistical difference in incisors crowding between the retention appliances in the individuals treated with extraction. Conclusion: For nonextraction orthodontic treatments, SP is recommended especially for the lower incisors for incisor stability. There is no difference in incisor stabilization in the use of Essix, SP and Hawley in extraction treatments.
Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different retention apliances on the success of treatment in individuals with differently planned orthodontic treatments. Material and method: This study was carried out in 72 patients who were treated in the Orthodontics Department of Dentistry Faculty of Inönü University. Research groups were identified as 1st Group, nonextraction-Essix; 2nd Group, extraction-Essix; 3rd Group nonextraction-SP; 4th Group, extraction-SP; 5th Group, nonextraction-Hawley; 6th Group extraction-Hawley. Digital model records are 5 as head of treatment (T0), end of treatment (T1), 3rd months of retention (T2), 6th months of retention (T3) and 12th months of retention (T4). Results: No significant differences were found in overjet, overbite, intercanine and first intermolar width and arch depth among the subgroups in the upper and lower jaws measurements on the digital models in the T0, T1, T2, T3 and T4 periods (p>0,05). In the individuals treated with extraction and nonextraction, intercanine distance was increased by treatment and protected during the retention period. In the individuals treated with extraction, first intermolar distance and arch depth were lower than the individuals treated nonextraction. In 3rd Group, the lower incisors crowding was statistically significantly lower than 1st Group and 5th Group in T4 period. There is no statistical difference in incisors crowding between the retention appliances in the individuals treated with extraction. Conclusion: For nonextraction orthodontic treatments, SP is recommended especially for the lower incisors for incisor stability. There is no difference in incisor stabilization in the use of Essix, SP and Hawley in extraction treatments.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynak
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
Sayı
Künye
UZ, Z. (2017). Ortodontik tedavi sonrasında kullanılan farklı pekiştirme apareylerinin etkinliklerinin dijital modelleme yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi, İnönü Üniversitesi / Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi / Ortodonti Ana Bilim Dalı.
