Die Bedeutung der Extraktionstherapie für die Stabilität des Behandlungsergebnisses

Kahl‐Nieke, Bärbel

doi:10.1007/bf02197548

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, other authors such as Kaplan [13] reported that the irregularity index relapsed to a greater extent in extraction cases. Like Gardener & Chaconas [4] and Kahl-Nieke et al [12], we observed post-therapeutic constrictions in the buccal region of extraction patients and, in contrast to nonextraction patients, no long-lasting expansion was achieved.…”

Section: Diskussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…Der Irregularitätsindex rezidivierte im Unterkiefer allerdings bei anderen Autoren wie Kaplan [13] in Extraktionsfällen ausgeprägter. Im Seitenzahnbereich zeigten Extraktionspatienten nach eigenen Befunden wie bei Gardener & Chaconas [4] und Kahl-Nieke et al [12] posttherapeutische Konstriktionen, und es ließen sich im Gegensatz zu Patienten ohne Extraktionen keine dauerhaften Erweiterungen erzielen.…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retention and Stability – Taking Various Treatment Parameters into Account

Lang

Alfter

Göz

2002

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferortho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some degree of relapse was recorded in 13% of the measurements on average, even in patients with some form of long-term retention. However, it may be possible to reduce the relapse rate by taking account of the following criteria: Retention time should be increased in cases of short-term therapy, since relapse was found to occur more often on average (19%) when the treatment time was less than 3 years than when it was longer than 4 years (13%). As the highest relapse rate registered was 24% when therapy was started between the ages of 9 and 12 years, but was up to 42% in younger and older patients, there should be more extensive retention in these latter cases. Where there is a risk of relapse in the anterior arch, fixed lingual retainers should be given preference over removable ones. This is especially applicable to male patients and to non-extraction patients, as relapses in the anterior segment occurred more often or were more marked in these cases. The use of removable retainers is necessary when the transverse stability of the buccal segment is at risk. When only fixed retainers were used in the anterior area, relapses were recorded 6-31% more frequently in the interpremolar distance in the maxilla (21%) and the mandible (35%), and in the lower intermolar distance (27%). In particular, the use of a removable mandibular retainer should not be dispensed with after bicuspid extractions, transverse expansion and, in female patients, in the lower jaw, as relapse in the buccal segment was more marked or more common in such cases. On the basis of our clinical findings and of earlier studies, the retention time should be at least 2 years. The retainer type used has been found to be just as important as the retention time. If optimum relapse prevention is aimed at, fixed maxillary and mandibular retainers in the anterior region should be combined with a removable retainer and worn until the patients reach their late twenties.

show abstract

Section: Diskussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Section: Diskussionunclassified

Retention and Stability – Taking Various Treatment Parameters into Account

Lang

Alfter

Göz

2002

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferortho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Mandibular incisor stability after bimaxillary orthodontic treatment with premolar extraction in the upper arch

Schütz-Fransson¹,

Bjerklin²,

Kurol³

1998

J Orofac Orthop/Fortschr Kieferorthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate long-term changes in the lower incisor region, a comparison was made between children with large overjet treated with extraction of the upper first premolars and fixed appliances in both jaws and untreated children with normal occlusion. The treatment group consisted of 26 children and was studied with plaster models on 5 occasions: before treatment, at the end of active treatment, at the end of retention, after 1 year out of retention and at the last registration 4 to 5 years out of retention. The total time from the start of treatment to the last registration was 9 years and 10 months. Cephalometric registrations were made at the first and last registrations. The group of untreated children, the control group, consisted of 19 individuals. They were also studied with plaster models and lateral headfilms during a period of 10 years. The age of the treatment group and the control group at the last registration was 21.7 years and 20.4 years, respectively. At the first registration there was an available space in the lower anterior region of -0.06 mm (+/- 1.73) in the treatment group and + 0.4 mm (+/- 2.00) in the control group. At the last registration the available space for the treatment group was -1.4 mm (+/- 1.31), an extra space loss of 0.8 mm; in the control group the space loss was 1.3 mm and the available space was thus -0.9 mm. No significant difference in anterior lower jaw crowding could be seen between the treatment and control group at the last registration. Subjective ranking of the plaster models from the final registrations according to the amount of crowding in the lower anterior region showed no significant difference between the treatment and the control group.

show abstract

Long-term development in the mandible and incisor crowding with and without an orthodontic stabilising appliance

Schütz-Fransson¹,

Bjerklin²,

Kurol³

1998

J Orofac Orthop/Fortschr Kieferorthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In children with dentoalveolar Class II malocclusion with proclined upper incisors treated with extraction of the maxillary first premolars and appliance in the upper jaw only has been reported to increase the lower arch crowding when compared with children with untreated normal occlusion. Stabilising orthodontic appliances might therefore be useful in the lower jaw. A comparison was made of Class II: 1 malocclusion with extraction in the upper arch in 35 individuals in whom a fixed orthodontic appliance was used in the upper arch only and 26 individuals with fixed appliances in both jaws. The mean age at the start of treatment was 12.9 and 12.8 years, respectively. Treatment effects and post-retention changes up to 4 to 5 years out of retention at the age of 20 to 22 years were evaluated from lateral head films and plaster casts. During treatment the orthodontic appliance in the lower arch relieved crowding. The available lower anterior space increased from -0.6 to +0.2 mm, compared, to a decrease from -0.4 to -1.3 mm in the group without mandibular appliances. After 4 to 5 years out of retention the lower arch available space had decreased in both groups, to -1.4 mm in the group where orthodontic appliances had been used in both jaws and to -2.5 mm in the group without an orthodontic appliance in the lower jaw. This difference was significant. But the subjective ranking of the amount of crowding in the lower jaw models showed no significant difference between the 2 groups at the age of 20 to 22 years.

show abstract

Die Bedeutung der Extraktionstherapie für die Stabilität des Behandlungsergebnisses

Cited by 4 publications

References 36 publications

Retention and Stability – Taking Various Treatment Parameters into Account

Retention and Stability – Taking Various Treatment Parameters into Account

Mandibular incisor stability after bimaxillary orthodontic treatment with premolar extraction in the upper arch

Long-term development in the mandible and incisor crowding with and without an orthodontic stabilising appliance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About