Comparison of 2 distalization systems supported by intraosseous screws

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorGelgor, Ibrahim Erhan
dc.contributor.authorKaraman, Ali Ihya
dc.contributor.authorBuyukyilmaz, Tamer
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-26T17:17:07Z
dc.date.available2020-03-26T17:17:07Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.departmentSelçuk Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 2 distalization systems supported by intraosseous screws for maxillary molar distalization. Methods: Forty subjects with skeletal Class I dental Class II malocclusion were divided into group 1 (8 girls, 12 boys) and group 2 (11 girls, 9 boys). An anchorage unit was prepared by placing an intraosseous screw in the premaxillary area of each subject. To increase the anchorage in group 2, we used an acrylic plate resembling the Nance button around the screw. The screws were placed and immediately loaded to distalize the maxillary first molars or second molars when they were present. Skeletal and dental changes were measured on cephalograms, and dental casts were obtained before and after distalization. Results: The average distalization times were 4.6 months for group 1 and 5.4 months for group 2. On the cephalograms, the maxillary first molars were tipped 9.05 degrees in group 1 and 0.75 degrees in group 2. The mean distal movements were 3.95 mm in group 1 and 3.88 mm in group 2. On the dental casts, the mean distalization amounts were 4.85 mm for group 1 and 3.70 mm for group 2. In group 1, the maxillary molars were rotated distopalatally to a moderate degree, but this was not significant in group 2. Mild protrusion of the maxillary central incisors was also recorded for group 1 but not for group 2. However, there were no changes in overjet, overbite, and mandibular plane angle measurements for either group. Conclusions: Immediately loaded intraosseous screw-supported anchorage units were successful for molar distalization in both groups. In group 2, side effects such as molar tipping and rotation were smaller, but distalization times were longer and hygiene was poorer.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.03.027en_US
dc.identifier.issn0889-5406en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-6752en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.pmid17276855en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.03.027
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/21274
dc.identifier.volume131en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000244235200023en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMOSBY-ELSEVIERen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICSen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.selcuk20240510_oaigen_US
dc.titleComparison of 2 distalization systems supported by intraosseous screwsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

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