BACKGROUND Skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion is an antero posterior discrepancy between maxilla and mandible which is usually treated by functional appliances when the patient is in the growing phase. It has been shown that these functional orthodontic appliances may lead to pressure on the oral mucosa, soft tissue tension, oral constriction, toothache and pain. They may also lead to fatigue or to functional speech and respiratory disorders, and they may affect the appearance of the face. All of these undesired consequences affect the patients’ degree of compliance in a negative manner, and may in turn affect the patients’ perception towards the treatment. This study was conducted to investigate patient perception of treatment need, appliance acceptance, expectations of treatment influence on oral health, value of dental aesthetics and information concerning treatment procedures. METHODS Total 30 samples were selected 15 samples were cases treated with twin block appliance and other 15 samples were treated with clear block appliance. After 8 months of treatment, a questionnaire survey was conducted assessing discomfort, expectations and experiences of all patients being treated with clear block appliance and twin block appliance. RESULTS Clear block seemed to be better with regard to all the parameters used in the study but on statistical analysis the difference between the two groups was insignificant. CONCLUSIONS Clear block appliance was designed to increase the compliance of the patient. However, clear block and twin block appliance have similar effects. KEY WORDS Class II, Clear Block, Twin Block
BACKGROUND Palatine rugae are small transverse structures present in the anterior 2 / 3rd of the palate. These rugae are protected by various structures of the oral cavity. They are immovable structures but variations in the oral cavity may lead to alterations in these small structures. There have been many studies that have quoted changes in these rugae patterns with various tooth movements whereas various other studies demonstrate no significant changes. None of the studies in specific have mentioned about palatal rugae changes with myofunctional appliances. The objective of this research was to evaluate the palatal rugae morphology and its stability after myofunctional therapy, as expansion and movement of teeth might lead to changes in these rugae. METHODS A total of 90 maxillary casts, 30 of Class I, 30 of Class II pre-treatment and casts of same subjects after myofunctional therapy, patients age ranging between 10 and 13 years were selected for the study. Length, intermedial and interlateral distances, angle of divergence and position of rugae were studied based on Lysell Classification 1955 and Thomas and Kotze Classification 1983. RESULTS Secondary and fragmentary rugae were found to be statistically significant as they were increased in Class II samples compared to Class I. The rugae in Class II samples were found to be shorter and therefore significant results were seen. IM1, IM2, IM4, IM5 and IM6 were found to be statistically significant respectively. Similarly, IL2, IL4, IL5 and IL6 were appreciable. IM1 was found to be appreciable. IL1, IL2, IL3 and IL4 were statistically significant. Significant difference was found in mean rugae value among Class I and Class II pre-treatment groups. Statistically significant difference was found in mean rugae value among Class I and Class II pre-treatment group. Incisive papilla to posterior border of last rugae (IP-PBA) was found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS Myofunctional therapy did have an effect on the rugae pattern. But the age group of 10 – 13 years consisted of growing individuals. Therefore, it could not be concluded as to whether the changes were because of growth taking place or because of myofunctional therapy. KEY WORDS Palatine Rugae, Myofunctional Appliances, Class II Malocclusion
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.