Outcomes of different Class II treatments Comparisons using the American Board of Orthodontics Model Grading System

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorCansunar, Hatice Akinci
dc.contributor.authorUysal, Tancan
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-04T20:41:42Z
dc.date.available2024-08-04T20:41:42Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.departmentİnönü Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of three different Class II treatment modalities followed by fixed orthodontic therapy, using the American Board of Orthodontics Model Grading System (ABO-MGS). As a retrospective study, files of patients treated at postgraduate orthodontic clinics in different cities in Turkey was randomly selected. From 1684 posttreatment records, 669 patients were divided into three groups: 269 patients treated with extraction of two upper premolars, 198 patients treated with cervical headgear, and 202 patients treated with functional appliances. All the cases were evaluated by one researcher using ABO-MGS. The chi (2), Z test, and multivariate analysis of variance were used for statistical evaluation (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found among the groups in buccolingual inclination, overjet, occlusal relationship, and root angulation. However, there were significant differences in alignment, marginal ridge height, occlusal contact, interproximal contact measurements, and overall MGS average scores. The mean treatment time between the extraction and functional appliance groups was significantly different (p = 0.017). According to total ABO-MGS scores, headgear treatment had better results than functional appliances. The headgear group had better tooth alignment than the extraction group. Headgear treatment resulted in better occlusal contacts than the functional appliances and had lower average scores for interproximal contact measurements. Functional appliances had the worst average scores for marginal ridge height. Finally, the functional appliance group had the longest treatment times.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00056-016-0031-7
dc.identifier.endpage241en_US
dc.identifier.issn1434-5293
dc.identifier.issn1615-6714
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.pmid27098642en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84964389698en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage233en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0031-7
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11616/97290
dc.identifier.volume77en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000379848800001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUrban & Vogelen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadieen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectExtraoral traction appliancesen_US
dc.subjectTooth extractionen_US
dc.subjectOrthodontic appliancesen_US
dc.subjectFunctional appliancesen_US
dc.titleOutcomes of different Class II treatments Comparisons using the American Board of Orthodontics Model Grading Systemen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu