Majid Heidarpour; Saeid Sadeghian; Amir Siadat; Sara Siadat; Maryam Keimasi
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of concomitant use of a facemask and a removable appliance and a removable appliance alone for antero-posterior expansion in Cl III children with maxillary deficiency.
Methods: In this retrospective analytical study, 21 Cl III ...
Read More
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of concomitant use of a facemask and a removable appliance and a removable appliance alone for antero-posterior expansion in Cl III children with maxillary deficiency.
Methods: In this retrospective analytical study, 21 Cl III children aged 8 - 10 years were selected using the census sampling technique. The subjects were divided into two groups based on the treatment modality. In group A, the subjects received an antero-posterior-expanding removable appliance and in group B, they received the same removable appliance concomitant with a facemask. Pre- and post-therapeutic cephalograms were analyzed and changes and angles on both images were determined. Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare the results of the two treatment modalities and before-after results respectively (α = 0.05). Results: Wits appraisal, overjet, ANB, U1-SN, U1-PP and A-B difference increased in both groups after treatment (P < 0.05). In the removable appliance group, overbite, SNB and inter-incisal angle decreased (P < 0.05). In the facemask group, IMPA decreased significantly (P < 0.05). Comparison of the two treatment modalities showed that changes in SNA, ANB, overbite, IMPA, U1-SN, U1-PP and inter-incisal angle were significant between the two groups (P < 0.05).
Conclusions: Use of a removable appliance alone or in combination with a facemask resulted in the forward movement of point A and protrusion of upper incisors. The removable appliance increased the anterior facial height and decreased overbite. A combination of facemask-removable appliance did not result in the backward and downward rotation of the mandible.
Mahtab Nouri; Amin Aminian; Majid Heidarpour; Alireza Akbarzadeh Bagheban; Reza Massudi
Abstract
Aims: Comparison of 3D laser scanning and 2D conventional scanning in analysis of arch dimensions.
Methods: Twenty setups of upper and lower casts were duplicated in 20 corresponding dental stone models. 3D laser scanner was constructed in Shahid Beheshti University, and then casts were scanned with ...
Read More
Aims: Comparison of 3D laser scanning and 2D conventional scanning in analysis of arch dimensions.
Methods: Twenty setups of upper and lower casts were duplicated in 20 corresponding dental stone models. 3D laser scanner was constructed in Shahid Beheshti University, and then casts were scanned with this machine. 2D scanning was performed by conventional scanner. Intercanine and intermolar widths and canine and molar depth were calculated directly on casts by digital caliper and on both scans. The mean differences between these three methods were evaluated by repeated measure analysis of variance and between each pair by paired t-test.Results: The correlation between intercanine and intermolar widths of all three modalities were higher than 0.9, but for canine and molar depths the correlation was not so strong and for canine depth was the weakest (R=0.45).The differences between intercanine and intermolar widths of all three modalities for upper and lower casts were significant, but for canine (and molar) depths, only the difference between 3D and direct technique for the upper casts was significant (P < 0.05). The highest recorded differences for intercanine and intermolar widths and molar and canine depths were 0.67, 0.42, 0.59 and 0.71 mm respectively.Conclusions: Digital models are valid reliable clinical tools for arch dimension evaluations. In addition, the most reliable measurements are intercanine and intermolar widths.
