Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 144
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 144
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 212
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1002
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3142
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
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
Introduction: The aim of this study was to three-dimensionally compare the root angulation changes after orthodontic traction of buccally versus palatally maxillary impacted canines (MICs).
Material And Methods: This retrospective study included patients from a private dental office of both sexes, older than 12 years, with at least one unilateral or bilateral buccal or palatal MIC, no loss of permanent teeth, with complete apical closure at the beginning of traction, and with CBCTs taken at pretreatment (T) and after orthodontic traction (T). The sample was divided in two groups according to their impaction site: buccal versus palatal. In all the scans, the MIC was segmented and the root angulation changes after traction were evaluated. The assessment included the sigma angle (projected on the XZ plane or coronal tomographic view), the delta angle (projected on the XY plane or axial view) and the epsilon angle (projected on the YZ plane, or sagittal view). Intragroup comparisons were performed with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Intergroup comparisons were performed with t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests. Finally, the influence of MIC characteristics on the measured angles were evaluated with multiple linear regression analyses (α=0.05).
Results: Thirty-three patients (16 men, mean age: 20.38; 17 women, mean age 18.37) with forty-five orthodontically treated MIC (19 buccal versus 26 palatal) were finally included. The palatal MICs showed greater mediolateral uprighting than the buccal MICs, root displacement towards the midsagittal plane, as demonstrated by the sigma angle (palatal group: 37.58±15.08°; buccal group: 29.17±31.15°; P=0.164) and delta (palatal group: -76.90±26.55°; buccal group: -30.56±41.67°; P<0.001)angle changes. The buccal MICs showed greater anteroposterior uprighting, anterior root displacement, as demonstrated by the epsilon angle (palatal group: -4.63±12.37°; buccal group: -25.96±17.79°; P<0.001).
Conclusions: Mediolateral and anteroposterior root angulation show significant differences after traction between buccal and palatal MICs. Palatal MICs showed greater medial root displacement while buccal MICs showed greater anterior root displacement. This condition should be considered for better planning of traction and orthodontic finishing.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2021.04.003 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!