An elastic headgear.

Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol

Published: November 1954

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(54)90320-5DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

elastic headgear
4
elastic
1

Similar Publications

Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev

April 2024

Cochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Background: Prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) may be due to jaw or tooth position or both. The upper jaw (maxilla) can be too far back or the lower jaw (mandible) too far forward; the upper front teeth (incisors) may be tipped back or the lower front teeth tipped forwards. Orthodontic treatment uses different types of braces (appliances) fitted inside or outside the mouth (or both) and fixed to the teeth.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Context: Orthopedic correction of skeletal class III malocclusion in a growing patient is crucial as it can circumvent future surgical procedures.

Aims: The aim of the study is to evaluate the dental and skeletal effects of early orthodontic intervention of developing class III malocclusion.

Settings And Design: A final sample of 38 children in the age-group of 6-14 years having skeletal class III malocclusion was selected.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

With conventional mechanics to protract the upper posterior teeth for correcting Class III molar relationships, such as intra-arch mechanics, face mask reverse-pull headgear protraction, and interarch Class III elastics, there are some adverse effects, including diminished patient compliance, the possibility of losing anchorage, and extrusion of upper molars and lower incisors with counterclockwise rotation of the occlusal plane. Protraction force should be directed through the center of resistance of the upper posterior teeth to prevent these side effects.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: The objective of this study was to compare the long-term cephalometric stability after successful therapy of nonextraction Class II malocclusion with elastics and with headgear.

Methods: The sample comprised 43 patients with Class II malocclusion and was divided into 2 groups. The elastic group (EG) consisted of 20 patients treated with fixed appliances associated with Class II elastics, and the headgear group (HG) consisted of 23 patients treated with fixed appliances and extraoral headgear.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The present study was carried out to evaluate the benefits from one-phase Class II Early Treatment (ET) using extraoral forces and functional appliances but without intermaxillary forces and eventual lower leeway space preservation compared to two-phase Class II Late Treatment (LT) with the need for extractions and full fixed appliances as well as lower incisor proclination. The ET group ( = 239, 115 M, 124 F, mean age 10.6 ± 1.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!