Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The aim of this compound cephalometric and arch-width study was to determine any dental and/or skeletal differences between subjects with Class II division 1 and Class II division 2 malocclusions. The dento-skeletal characteristics of Class II subjects were evaluated using lateral cephalometric radiographs and dental casts of 90 untreated patients. The sample included 46 Class II division 1 patients (19 girls and 27 boys) with a mean age of 15.27 +/- 2.48 years, and 44 Class II division 2 patients (27 girls and 17 boys) with a mean age of 15.95 +/- 3.25 years. The intermolar, interpremolar and intercanine measurements were carried out on study models. The radiographs were digitized and processed using Dolphin Imaging software. In addition to standard descriptive statistical calculations, an independent samples t-test was carried out in order to compare the two groups. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was utilized for the parameters for the data which were not normally distributed. The only statistically significant difference between the groups for the study model measurements was mandibular intercanine width. The cephalometric results revealed that SNB angle was responsible for the skeletal sagittal difference between the two groups. In addition, the Class II division 1 group had higher vertical proportions and the Class II division 2 group a more concave profile with a prominent chin. The sagittal skeletal pattern of Class II division 2 subjects was found to be very similar to the Class I skeletal relationship, with no evidence of any mandibular restriction.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji096 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!