medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista Odontológica Mexicana Órgano Oficial de la Facultad de Odontología UNAM

ISSN 1870-199X (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2012, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Odont Mex 2012; 16 (3)

Comparative analysis of final inclination of incisors after space closure. A comparison between sliding and translation mechanical techniques

Cumba MA, Ruiz DR, Meléndez OA
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 6
Page: 159-163
PDF size: 158.07 Kb.


Key words:

Incisor position, cephalometric changes.

ABSTRACT

Patients will undoubtedly benefit when having teeth well placed in all space planes, within their bone base. Therefore, in many cases, teeth extractions become necessary. The aim of the present study was to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in tooth movement, specifically in the anterior segment of the mouth, when comparing mechanical translation and sliding mechanical techniques. Sixty lateral skull x-rays were selected. Study groups were formed: 30 were subject to translation mechanical technique, and the remaining 30 to sliding technique. Measurements were taken by the same professional. Variable averages were compared before and after treatment, to determine the existence of statistically significant differences. Final measurements with both space closure techniques were compared. Results showed the presence of statistically significant differences in the translation technique with respect to variables (overjet, overbite, IMPA, II-NB, 1-SN, 1 Fh) before and after treatment. This was not the case for the following variables (1S-NA, occlusal 1-Pl, inter-incisal angle). It was equally observed that in the sliding mechanical technique there were statistically significant differences found in the variable II-NB). This was not the case for the other variables (overbite, overjet, 1S-NA, 1Sn, 1Fh, 1-Ocl. Pl. LIMA, Inter-incisive A). We therefore beg to conclude that translation mechanical technique is the one that brings us closer to cephalometric data norms with respect to final position of the incisors.


REFERENCES

  1. Burstone Ch. Modern edgewise mechanics segmented arch technique, 1989, Ormco corporation.

  2. Ceylan I, Baydas B, Bölükbasi B, Longitudinal cephalometric changes in incisor position, overjet, and overbite between 10 and 14 years of age. Angle Orthod 2002; 72: 246-250.

  3. Linda J. Anterior guidance: Group function/canine guidance. A literature review. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64: 479-82.

  4. Gjessing P, Controlled retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 101: 120-31.

  5. Williams R, The diagnostic line. Am J. Orthodontics 1969; 55 (5): 458-476.

  6. Alonso A. Oclusión y diagnóstico en rehabilitación oral. Ed. Médico Panamericana S.A. Argentina 2000.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev Odont Mex. 2012;16