Derleme
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

İskeletsel Angle Sınıf III Anomalilerin Tedavisinin Stabilitesine Etki Eden Faktörler

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 162 - 167, 01.05.2021

Oğuzhan Kale Alev Aksoy Merve Özkan

https://doi.org/10.19127/bshealthscience.789761

Öz

Sınıf III maloklüzyonlar tedavi başarısı ve yüksek relaps riski nedeniyle zor anomalilerden biri olarak tanımlanır. Büyüme ve gelişim dönemi içerisinde yapılan sınıf III maloklüzyonların tedavisi aynı dönemde yapılan diğer maloklüzyonların tedavilerine oranla daha zordur. Bunun yanı sıra geç mandibuler büyümeye bağlı olarak tedavi sonuçları olumsuz olarak etkilenebilmektedir. Sınıf III maloklüzyonların tedavilerinin başarılı olması ve stabil kalması, anomalinin dişsel/iskeletsel komponentlerine, anomalinin şiddetine, tedaviye başlama yaşına, tedavi mekaniklerinin etkilerine, büyüme ve gelişimle oluşabilecek değişimlere, hekimin bilgisine ve hastanın işbirliğine bağlıdır. Bu seminerin amacı; dişsel ve iskeletsel sınıf III anomalilerin tedavisinin stabilitesine etki eden faktörleri ve uygulanan tedavilerin uzun dönemde incelendiği güncel çalışmalardan bahsetmektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ortodontik tedavi Relaps Sınıf III anomaliler

Kaynakça

  • Amado J, Sierra AM, Gallon A, Alvarez C, Baccetti T. 2008. Relationship between personality traits and cooperation of adolescent orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod, 78: 688-691.
  • Aras A. 1996. Ortodontide Pekiştirme (Lisans üstü ders notları), 8, 15, 27, 35.
  • Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. 2004. Cephalometric variables predicting the long term success or failure of combined rapid maxillary expansion and facial mask therapy. Am J Orthod, 126: 16-22.
  • Baccetti T, Rey D, Oberti G, Stahl F, McNamara JA. 2009. Long term outcomes of class III treatment with mandibular cervical headgear followed by fixed appliances. Angle Orthod, 79: 828-834.
  • Baik HS, Jee SH, Lee KJ, Oh TK. 2004. Treatment effects of Frankel functional regulator III in children with class III malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 125: 294-301.
  • Baik HS. 1995. Clinical results of the maxillary protraction in Korean children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 108: 583-592.
  • Battagel JM, Orton HS. 1993. Class III malocclusion: the post-retention findings following a non-extraction treatment approach. Eur J Orthod, 15: 45-55.
  • Bos A, Vosselman N, Hoogstraten J, PrahlAndersen B. 2005. Patient compliance: a determinant of patient satisfaction? Angle Orthod, 75: 526-531.
  • Callender RS, Barbour A. 1981. Effective communication with clients: financial arrangements. J Clin Orthod, 15: 497-500.
  • Cozzani G. 1981. Extraoral traction and Class III treatment. Am J Orthod, 80: 638-650.
  • Daniels AS, Seacat JD, Inglehart MR. 2009. Orthodontic treatment motivation and cooperation: a crosssectional analysis of adolescent patients' and parents' responses. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 136: 780-787.
  • Deguchi T, Kanomi R, Ashizawa Y, Rosenstein SW. 1999. Very early face mask therapy in Class III children. Angle Orthod, 69: 349-355.
  • Delaire J. 1997. Maxillary development revisited: relevance to the orthopaedic treatment of Class III malocclusions. Eur J Orthod, 19: 289-311.
  • Demirel H. 1999. Ağız içi çift plak uygulaması ile 3. sınıf anomalilerin tedavilerine yeni bir yaklaşım. Doktora Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Dinçer M, Işık-Arslan B, Gülşen A. 2008. Başlıkla stabilize edilmiş yüz maskesi. Türk Ortodonti Dergisi, 21: 56-66.
  • Ferro A, Nucci LP, Ferro F, Gallo C. 2003. Long-term stability of skeletal Class III patients treated with splints, Class III elastics, and chincup. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop,123: 423-434.
  • Frankel R. 1970. Maxillary retrusion in Class III and treatment with the function corrector III. Trans Eur Orthod Soc, 46: 249-259.
  • Gallagher RW, Miranda F, Buschang PH. 1998. Maxillary protraction: treatment and posttreatment effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 113: 612-619.
  • Ghiz MA, Ngan P, Gunel E. 2005. Cephalometric variables to predict future success of early orthopedic Class III treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 127: 301-306.
  • Gözütok G. 1991. Ortodontide pekiştirme tedavisi (Bitirme Tezi), 2, 54.
  • Graber TM, Rakosi T, Petrovic AG. 1997. Dentofacial Orthopedics with Functional Appliances. 2nd edition. CV Mosby: St. Louis.
  • İşcan HN, Sarısoy L. 1997. Comparison of the effects of passive posterior bite-blocks with different construction bites on the craniofacial and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 112: 171-178.
  • Kajiyama K, Murakami T, Suzuki A. 2000. Evaluation of the maxillary protractor applied to class III malocclusion with retruded maxilla in early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118: 549-559.
  • Laskin DM. 1979. The doctor-patient relationship: a potential communication gap. J Oral Surg, 37: 786.
  • Lu YC, Tanne K, Hirano Y, Sakuda M. 1993. Craniofacial morphology of adolescent mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod, 63: 277-282.
  • Mcnamara JAJR, Huge SA. 1985. The functional regulator (FR-3) of frankel. Am J Orthod 88: 409-424.
  • Merwin D, Ngan P, Hagg U, Yiu C, Wei SH. 1997. Timing for effective application of anteriorly directed orthopedic force to the maxilla Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 112: 292-299.
  • Nartallo-Turley PE, Turley PK. 1998. Cephalometric effects of combined palatal expansion and facemask therapy on Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod, 68: 217-224.
  • Ngan P. Biomechanics of maxillary expansion and protraction in Class III patients. 2002. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 121: 582-583.
  • Proffıt WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. 2007. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th Ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier, USA.
  • Rübendüz M, Gökalp H, Erdoğan B. 1996. Sınıf III anomalilerin mandibuler splintli servikal headgear (MSHg) ile tedavisi. Türk ortodonti dergisi, 9: 270-276.
  • Saadia M, Torres E. 2000. Sagittal changes after maxillary protraction with expansion in Class III patients in the primary, mixed and late mixed dentitions: a longitidunal retrospective study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop, 117: 669-680.
  • Suda N, Ishii-Suzuki M, Hirose K, Hiyama S, Suzuki S, Kuroda T. 2000. Effective treatment plan for maxillary protraction: is the bone age useful to determine the treatment plan?.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 118: 55-62.
  • Takada K, Petdachaı S, Sakuda M. 1993. Changes in dentofacial morphology in skeletal Class III children treated by a modified maxillary protraction headgear and a chin cup: a longitudinal cephalometric appraisal. Eur J Orthod, 15: 211-221.
  • Tanne K, Sakuda M. 1991. Biomechanical and clinical changes of the craniofacial complex from orthopedic maxillary protraction. Angle Orthod, 61: 145-152.
  • Uzel İ. 1998. Ortodontide hekim- hasta ilişkisi. Türk Ortod Derg, 11: 64-73.
  • Üçem TT, Üçüncü N, Yüksel S. 2004. Comparison of double-plate appliance and facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 126: 672-679.
  • Weiss J, Eiser HM. 1977. Psychological timing of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod, 72: 198-204.
  • Wendl B, Stampfl M, Muchitsch AP, Dorschl H, Winsauer H, Walter A, Wendl M, Wendl T. 2017. Long term skeletal and dental effects of facemask versus chincup treatment in class III patients. J Orofac Orthop, 78: 293-299.
  • Williams S, Andersen E. 1986. The morphology of potential skeletal pattern in growing child. A J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 89: 302-311.
  • Yelampalli MR, Rachala MR. 2012. Timely management of developing class III malocclusion. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent, 30: 78-84.
  • Yoshida I, Yamaguchi N, Mizoguchi I. 2006. Prediction of post-treatment outcome after combined treatment with maxillary protraction and chincap appliances. Eur J Orthod, 28: 89-96.
  • Yüksel S. 1996. Sınıf III maloklüzyonlarda dentofasiyal morfolojinin değerlendirilmesi. Türk ortodonti dergisi, 9: 194-199.

Factors Affecting the Stability of Treatment of Skeletal Angle Class III Anomalies

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 162 - 167, 01.05.2021

Oğuzhan Kale Alev Aksoy Merve Özkan

https://doi.org/10.19127/bshealthscience.789761

Öz

Class III malocclusions are difficult anomalies due to treatment success and high relapse risk. The treatment of class III malocclusions during the growth and development period is more difficult than the treatment of other malocclusions in the same period. Besides, treatment results can be adversely affected due to late mandibular growth. Success and stabilization of Class III malocclusion treatments depends on the dental / skeletal components of the anomaly, the severity of the anomalies, the age of onset of treatment, the effects of treatment mechanics, the changes that can occur with growth and development, the knowledge of the physician and the cooperation of the patient. The purpose of this seminar is; to talk about the factors that affect the stability of the treatment of dental and skeletal class III anomalies, and the current studies on long term treatment of applied therapies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Orthodontic treatment Relapse Class III anomalies

Kaynakça

  • Amado J, Sierra AM, Gallon A, Alvarez C, Baccetti T. 2008. Relationship between personality traits and cooperation of adolescent orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod, 78: 688-691.
  • Aras A. 1996. Ortodontide Pekiştirme (Lisans üstü ders notları), 8, 15, 27, 35.
  • Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. 2004. Cephalometric variables predicting the long term success or failure of combined rapid maxillary expansion and facial mask therapy. Am J Orthod, 126: 16-22.
  • Baccetti T, Rey D, Oberti G, Stahl F, McNamara JA. 2009. Long term outcomes of class III treatment with mandibular cervical headgear followed by fixed appliances. Angle Orthod, 79: 828-834.
  • Baik HS, Jee SH, Lee KJ, Oh TK. 2004. Treatment effects of Frankel functional regulator III in children with class III malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 125: 294-301.
  • Baik HS. 1995. Clinical results of the maxillary protraction in Korean children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 108: 583-592.
  • Battagel JM, Orton HS. 1993. Class III malocclusion: the post-retention findings following a non-extraction treatment approach. Eur J Orthod, 15: 45-55.
  • Bos A, Vosselman N, Hoogstraten J, PrahlAndersen B. 2005. Patient compliance: a determinant of patient satisfaction? Angle Orthod, 75: 526-531.
  • Callender RS, Barbour A. 1981. Effective communication with clients: financial arrangements. J Clin Orthod, 15: 497-500.
  • Cozzani G. 1981. Extraoral traction and Class III treatment. Am J Orthod, 80: 638-650.
  • Daniels AS, Seacat JD, Inglehart MR. 2009. Orthodontic treatment motivation and cooperation: a crosssectional analysis of adolescent patients' and parents' responses. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 136: 780-787.
  • Deguchi T, Kanomi R, Ashizawa Y, Rosenstein SW. 1999. Very early face mask therapy in Class III children. Angle Orthod, 69: 349-355.
  • Delaire J. 1997. Maxillary development revisited: relevance to the orthopaedic treatment of Class III malocclusions. Eur J Orthod, 19: 289-311.
  • Demirel H. 1999. Ağız içi çift plak uygulaması ile 3. sınıf anomalilerin tedavilerine yeni bir yaklaşım. Doktora Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Dinçer M, Işık-Arslan B, Gülşen A. 2008. Başlıkla stabilize edilmiş yüz maskesi. Türk Ortodonti Dergisi, 21: 56-66.
  • Ferro A, Nucci LP, Ferro F, Gallo C. 2003. Long-term stability of skeletal Class III patients treated with splints, Class III elastics, and chincup. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop,123: 423-434.
  • Frankel R. 1970. Maxillary retrusion in Class III and treatment with the function corrector III. Trans Eur Orthod Soc, 46: 249-259.
  • Gallagher RW, Miranda F, Buschang PH. 1998. Maxillary protraction: treatment and posttreatment effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 113: 612-619.
  • Ghiz MA, Ngan P, Gunel E. 2005. Cephalometric variables to predict future success of early orthopedic Class III treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 127: 301-306.
  • Gözütok G. 1991. Ortodontide pekiştirme tedavisi (Bitirme Tezi), 2, 54.
  • Graber TM, Rakosi T, Petrovic AG. 1997. Dentofacial Orthopedics with Functional Appliances. 2nd edition. CV Mosby: St. Louis.
  • İşcan HN, Sarısoy L. 1997. Comparison of the effects of passive posterior bite-blocks with different construction bites on the craniofacial and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 112: 171-178.
  • Kajiyama K, Murakami T, Suzuki A. 2000. Evaluation of the maxillary protractor applied to class III malocclusion with retruded maxilla in early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118: 549-559.
  • Laskin DM. 1979. The doctor-patient relationship: a potential communication gap. J Oral Surg, 37: 786.
  • Lu YC, Tanne K, Hirano Y, Sakuda M. 1993. Craniofacial morphology of adolescent mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod, 63: 277-282.
  • Mcnamara JAJR, Huge SA. 1985. The functional regulator (FR-3) of frankel. Am J Orthod 88: 409-424.
  • Merwin D, Ngan P, Hagg U, Yiu C, Wei SH. 1997. Timing for effective application of anteriorly directed orthopedic force to the maxilla Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 112: 292-299.
  • Nartallo-Turley PE, Turley PK. 1998. Cephalometric effects of combined palatal expansion and facemask therapy on Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod, 68: 217-224.
  • Ngan P. Biomechanics of maxillary expansion and protraction in Class III patients. 2002. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 121: 582-583.
  • Proffıt WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. 2007. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th Ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier, USA.
  • Rübendüz M, Gökalp H, Erdoğan B. 1996. Sınıf III anomalilerin mandibuler splintli servikal headgear (MSHg) ile tedavisi. Türk ortodonti dergisi, 9: 270-276.
  • Saadia M, Torres E. 2000. Sagittal changes after maxillary protraction with expansion in Class III patients in the primary, mixed and late mixed dentitions: a longitidunal retrospective study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop, 117: 669-680.
  • Suda N, Ishii-Suzuki M, Hirose K, Hiyama S, Suzuki S, Kuroda T. 2000. Effective treatment plan for maxillary protraction: is the bone age useful to determine the treatment plan?.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 118: 55-62.
  • Takada K, Petdachaı S, Sakuda M. 1993. Changes in dentofacial morphology in skeletal Class III children treated by a modified maxillary protraction headgear and a chin cup: a longitudinal cephalometric appraisal. Eur J Orthod, 15: 211-221.
  • Tanne K, Sakuda M. 1991. Biomechanical and clinical changes of the craniofacial complex from orthopedic maxillary protraction. Angle Orthod, 61: 145-152.
  • Uzel İ. 1998. Ortodontide hekim- hasta ilişkisi. Türk Ortod Derg, 11: 64-73.
  • Üçem TT, Üçüncü N, Yüksel S. 2004. Comparison of double-plate appliance and facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 126: 672-679.
  • Weiss J, Eiser HM. 1977. Psychological timing of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod, 72: 198-204.
  • Wendl B, Stampfl M, Muchitsch AP, Dorschl H, Winsauer H, Walter A, Wendl M, Wendl T. 2017. Long term skeletal and dental effects of facemask versus chincup treatment in class III patients. J Orofac Orthop, 78: 293-299.
  • Williams S, Andersen E. 1986. The morphology of potential skeletal pattern in growing child. A J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 89: 302-311.
  • Yelampalli MR, Rachala MR. 2012. Timely management of developing class III malocclusion. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent, 30: 78-84.
  • Yoshida I, Yamaguchi N, Mizoguchi I. 2006. Prediction of post-treatment outcome after combined treatment with maxillary protraction and chincap appliances. Eur J Orthod, 28: 89-96.
  • Yüksel S. 1996. Sınıf III maloklüzyonlarda dentofasiyal morfolojinin değerlendirilmesi. Türk ortodonti dergisi, 9: 194-199.
Toplam 43 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Diş Hekimliği
Bölüm Derleme
Yazarlar

Oğuzhan Kale 0000-0003-2232-0649

Alev Aksoy 0000-0003-4605-2896

Merve Özkan 0000-0002-3344-2804

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Mayıs 2021
Gönderilme Tarihi 3 Eylül 2020
Kabul Tarihi 22 Kasım 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021 Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Kale, O., Aksoy, A., & Özkan, M. (2021). İskeletsel Angle Sınıf III Anomalilerin Tedavisinin Stabilitesine Etki Eden Faktörler. Black Sea Journal of Health Science, 4(2), 162-167. https://doi.org/10.19127/bshealthscience.789761
AMA Kale O, Aksoy A, Özkan M. İskeletsel Angle Sınıf III Anomalilerin Tedavisinin Stabilitesine Etki Eden Faktörler. BSJ Health Sci. Mayıs 2021;4(2):162-167. doi:10.19127/bshealthscience.789761
Chicago Kale, Oğuzhan, Alev Aksoy, ve Merve Özkan. “İskeletsel Angle Sınıf III Anomalilerin Tedavisinin Stabilitesine Etki Eden Faktörler”. Black Sea Journal of Health Science 4, sy. 2 (Mayıs 2021): 162-67. https://doi.org/10.19127/bshealthscience.789761.
EndNote Kale O, Aksoy A, Özkan M (01 Mayıs 2021) İskeletsel Angle Sınıf III Anomalilerin Tedavisinin Stabilitesine Etki Eden Faktörler. Black Sea Journal of Health Science 4 2 162–167.
IEEE O. Kale, A. Aksoy, ve M. Özkan, “İskeletsel Angle Sınıf III Anomalilerin Tedavisinin Stabilitesine Etki Eden Faktörler”, BSJ Health Sci., c. 4, sy. 2, ss. 162–167, 2021, doi: 10.19127/bshealthscience.789761.
ISNAD Kale, Oğuzhan vd. “İskeletsel Angle Sınıf III Anomalilerin Tedavisinin Stabilitesine Etki Eden Faktörler”. Black Sea Journal of Health Science 4/2 (Mayıs 2021), 162-167. https://doi.org/10.19127/bshealthscience.789761.
JAMA Kale O, Aksoy A, Özkan M. İskeletsel Angle Sınıf III Anomalilerin Tedavisinin Stabilitesine Etki Eden Faktörler. BSJ Health Sci. 2021;4:162–167.
MLA Kale, Oğuzhan vd. “İskeletsel Angle Sınıf III Anomalilerin Tedavisinin Stabilitesine Etki Eden Faktörler”. Black Sea Journal of Health Science, c. 4, sy. 2, 2021, ss. 162-7, doi:10.19127/bshealthscience.789761.
Vancouver Kale O, Aksoy A, Özkan M. İskeletsel Angle Sınıf III Anomalilerin Tedavisinin Stabilitesine Etki Eden Faktörler. BSJ Health Sci. 2021;4(2):162-7.
 Kapak Resmi İndir