2014
DOI: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.6.099-104.oar
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: INTRODUCTION: Although lip bumpers (LBs) provide significant clinical gain of mandibular arch perimeter in mixed-dentition patients, orthodontists are reluctant to use them due to the possibility of permanent second molar eruptive disturbances. OBJECTIVE: The present study was conducted to assess second molar impaction associated with the use of LBs, and to investigate how they can be solved. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Lateral and panoramic radiographs of 67 patients (34 females and 33 males) were assessed prior (T… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
22
1
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
2
22
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…found M2 impaction in 12% of the patients who underwent LB treatment. [ 4 ] However, even if the risk of M2 impaction develops in this case, it can be treated by placing spacers between M1 and M2 to create space, thus allowing the second molars to achieve a favorable position. [ 4 ]…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…found M2 impaction in 12% of the patients who underwent LB treatment. [ 4 ] However, even if the risk of M2 impaction develops in this case, it can be treated by placing spacers between M1 and M2 to create space, thus allowing the second molars to achieve a favorable position. [ 4 ]…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 3 ] Lip bumpers (LBs) are generally indicated for the treatment of mild-to-moderate tooth size-arch length discrepancy during the mixed dentition. [ 4 ] They function by increasing arch width (in premolar and molar areas) and arch depth (by the proclination of incisors and distal tipping of M1) of the lower arch. [ 5 6 7 8 9 ] It is also used for eliminating lower lip sucking habit, mentalis hyperactivity, and labiomental strain.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among them, 17 were excluded and the reasons are provided in Table 1. Finally, five studies 5,10,11,16,17 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this systematic review.…”
Section: Study Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 2 provides the descriptive characteristics of the studies included. All of them were non-RCT, three 5,11,16 were retrospective, and two studies 10,17 were prospective studies, of which three 5,10,11 were clinically controlled. Sample sizes ranged from 67 16 to 260 5 individuals per study group, and the mean age of participants at baseline ranged from 8 10,11 to 11 17 years.…”
Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Evans [ 22 ] found that cases with impacted mandibular second molars have significantly more lower crowding compared with controls. Appliances such as the lingual arch or lip bumper which hold or further worsen the posterior arch length deficiency are also associated with mandibular second molar impaction [ [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] ]. The distal overhang of bands cemented to first permanent molars may further prevent the proper eruption of the second molar.…”
Section: Etiologic Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%