Orthodontic treatment and biological limits: a retrospective clinical trial.
1-NB [mm]
6-PTV
Biological limits
Treatment outcome
WALA ridge
Journal
Head & face medicine
ISSN: 1746-160X
Titre abrégé: Head Face Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245792
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Dec 2023
14 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
06
09
2023
accepted:
02
12
2023
medline:
15
12
2023
pubmed:
15
12
2023
entrez:
15
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The fundamental part of every successful orthodontic treatment is the detailed treatment planning including a precise determination of the virtual treatment objective (VTO) while considering the biological and anatomical limits. The aim of this study is to investigate and to compare the feasibility of the established reference values before and after orthodontic treatment and to determine the usefulness of this parameters as guidance for the sagittal anterior, sagittal posterior and transverse biological boundaries. Thirty-two patients aged 9 to 18 years (12 male and 20 female) with all permanent teeth present were randomly selected for orthodontic treatment with fixed multibracket appliance regardless of the potential malocclusion. The parameters 6-PTV, 1-NB [mm] and the WALA ridge were set for the identification of the transverse, sagittal anterior and sagittal posterior tooth position. The measurements were carried out at the beginning (T0) and at the end (T1) of the orthodontic treatment. They were set in relation with their individual threshold values (G). After the results of the measurements were conducted using the software OnyxCeph3TM (version 3.2.185 (505), Image Instruments GmbH, Chemnitz, DE), they were statistically calculated in the software RStudio (2022.12.0 Build 353 © 2009-2022 Posit Software PBC). Among the 32 patients, the mean pre- and post-treatment changes measured through the three parameters in relation to the individual reference values were statistically significant (p < 0.01). The mean values for 6-PTV, 1-NB and the WALA ridge amounted 15.37 mm, 2.56 mm and 4.23 mm at the beginning of the treatment, while after the treatment the measured values amounted 20.31 mm, 2.4 mm and 5.55 mm. These measurements combined with the statistical analysis of the changes of WALA ridge (T0, T1) confirmed that the teeth have been successfully uprighted and aligned. Furthermore, the maxillary first molars have been moved slightly mesially, as proven by the changes in 6-PTV, without certainty as to whether bodily movement or mesial tipping took place. Additionally, the lower incisors have been protruded, slightly exceeding the individual threshold values. The parameters investigated provide a suitable assessment tool for recording the limits of the sagittal posterior, the sagittal anterior and the transverse dimension.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The fundamental part of every successful orthodontic treatment is the detailed treatment planning including a precise determination of the virtual treatment objective (VTO) while considering the biological and anatomical limits. The aim of this study is to investigate and to compare the feasibility of the established reference values before and after orthodontic treatment and to determine the usefulness of this parameters as guidance for the sagittal anterior, sagittal posterior and transverse biological boundaries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Thirty-two patients aged 9 to 18 years (12 male and 20 female) with all permanent teeth present were randomly selected for orthodontic treatment with fixed multibracket appliance regardless of the potential malocclusion. The parameters 6-PTV, 1-NB [mm] and the WALA ridge were set for the identification of the transverse, sagittal anterior and sagittal posterior tooth position. The measurements were carried out at the beginning (T0) and at the end (T1) of the orthodontic treatment. They were set in relation with their individual threshold values (G). After the results of the measurements were conducted using the software OnyxCeph3TM (version 3.2.185 (505), Image Instruments GmbH, Chemnitz, DE), they were statistically calculated in the software RStudio (2022.12.0 Build 353 © 2009-2022 Posit Software PBC).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among the 32 patients, the mean pre- and post-treatment changes measured through the three parameters in relation to the individual reference values were statistically significant (p < 0.01). The mean values for 6-PTV, 1-NB and the WALA ridge amounted 15.37 mm, 2.56 mm and 4.23 mm at the beginning of the treatment, while after the treatment the measured values amounted 20.31 mm, 2.4 mm and 5.55 mm. These measurements combined with the statistical analysis of the changes of WALA ridge (T0, T1) confirmed that the teeth have been successfully uprighted and aligned. Furthermore, the maxillary first molars have been moved slightly mesially, as proven by the changes in 6-PTV, without certainty as to whether bodily movement or mesial tipping took place. Additionally, the lower incisors have been protruded, slightly exceeding the individual threshold values.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The parameters investigated provide a suitable assessment tool for recording the limits of the sagittal posterior, the sagittal anterior and the transverse dimension.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38098121
doi: 10.1186/s13005-023-00399-6
pii: 10.1186/s13005-023-00399-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
53Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
McNamara JA. Ordinary Orthodontics: Starting with the End in Mind. World J Orthod. 2000;1(1):45–54.
Tabancis N, Krey K, Ratzmann A. Biological limits as the basis for virtual treatment objectives: A-systematic literature search. J Aligner Orthod. 2023;7(2):99–111.
Ricketts RM. The value of cephalometrics and computerized technology. Angle Orthod. 1972;42(3):179–199.
pubmed: 4504536
Kim T-W, Artun J, Behbehani F, Artese F. Prevalence of third molar impaction in orthodontic patients treated nonextraction and with extraction of 4 premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123(2):138–45.
doi: 10.1067/mod.2003.13
pubmed: 12594419
Artun J, Behbehani F, Thalib L. Prediction of Maxillary Third Molar Impaction in Adolescent Orthodontic Patients. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(6):904–11.
pubmed: 16448230
Schulhof RJ. Third molars and orthodontic diagnosis. J Clin Orthod. 1976;10(4):272–81.
pubmed: 1074882
Al-Moghrabi D, Salazar FC, Pandis N, Fleming PS. Compliance with removable orthodontic appliances and adjuncts: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;152(1):17–32.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.03.019
pubmed: 28651764
Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 1953;39(10):729–55.
doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(53)90082-7
Downs WB. Analysis of the Dentofacial Profile. Angle Orthod. 1956;26:191–212.
Tweed CH. The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle in orthodontic diagnosis, classification, treatment planning, and prognosis. Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1946;32:175–230.
doi: 10.1016/0096-6347(46)90001-4
pubmed: 21022281
Hasund A, Böe OE. Floating norms as guidance for the position of the lower incisors. Angle Orthod. 1980;50(3):165–8.
pubmed: 6931501
Segner D, Hasund A. Individualisierte Kephalometrie. Hamburg: Segner; 2003. 4th ed., p. 92–93.
Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod. 1972;62(3):296–309.
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90268-0
pubmed: 4505873
Andrews LF, Andrews WA. Syllabus of the Andrews Orthodontic Philosophy. 9th ed. San Diego: Lawrence F. Andrews; 2001.
Andrews LF. The straight-wire appliance. Br J Orthod. 1979;6(3):125–43.
doi: 10.1179/bjo.6.3.125
pubmed: 297458
Andrews LF AW. The syllabus of the Andrews orthodontic philosophy. 9th ed. San Diego: Calif: L.F. Andrews Foundation, 2001, 7–29.
Kong-Zárate CY, Carruitero MJ, Andrews WA. Distances between mandibular posterior teeth and the WALA ridge in Peruvians with normal occlusion. Dental Press J Orthod. 2017;22(6):56–60.
doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.22.6.056-060.oar
pubmed: 29364380
pmcid: 5784817
McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ. Systemized orthodontic treatment mechanics. Edinburgh: Mosby; 2002.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
pubmed: 18839484
Bartko JJ. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep. 1966;19(1):3–11.
doi: 10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.3
pubmed: 5942109
Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The Equivalence of Weighted Kappa and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as Measures of Reliability. Educ Psychol Measur. 1973;33(3):613–9.
doi: 10.1177/001316447303300309
Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3/4):591.
doi: 10.2307/2333709
Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Epidemiology: Beyond the basics. Burlington, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2014.
de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1033–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.015
pubmed: 16980142
RStudio Team (2020). Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/ .
Siegel AF (ed). ANOVA: Testing for Differences Among Many Samples and Much More. 7th ed.: Academic Press, Practical Business Statistics; 2016;1(1):469–92.
Tukey JW. Comparing Individual Means in the Analysis of Variance. Biometrics. 1949;5(2):99.
doi: 10.2307/3001913
pubmed: 18151955
Portney LG. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to evidence-based practice. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis; 2020.
Byrt T. How good is that agreement? Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.). J Aligner Orthod. 1996;7(5):561.
Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(1):105–8.
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjl065
pubmed: 17290023
Watanabe-Kanno GA, Abrão J, Miasiro Junior H, Sánchez-Ayala A, Lagravère MO. Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile3 digital models. Braz Oral Res. 2009;23(3):288–95.
doi: 10.1590/S1806-83242009000300011
pubmed: 19893964
Ramos AL, Almeida RR, Pinzan A, Freitas MR. Influência da divergência facial no posicionamento dentário e das bases apicais, em jovens brasileiros com oclusão normal. Ortodontia. 1996;29(3):44–54.
Hasund A, Ulstein G. The position of the incisors in relation to the lines NA and NB in different facial types. Am J Orthod. 1970;57(1):1–14.
doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(70)90200-9
pubmed: 5262001
Navarro ACL, Carreiro LS, Rossato C, Takahashi R, Lima CEdO. Assessing the predictability of ANB, 1-NB, P-NB and 1-NA measurements on Steiner cephalometric analysis. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013;18(2):125–32.
doi: 10.1590/S2176-94512013000200024
pubmed: 23916442
Farret MMB, Araújo MCM. Comportamento da análise de Steiner em. Comportamento da análise de Steiner em casos tratados ortodonticamente. Ortodontia. 1981;14(3):164–72.
Andrews LF. The 6-elements orthodontic philosophy: Treatment goals, classification, and rules for treating. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(6):883–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.09.011
pubmed: 26672688
Triviño T, Siqueira DF, Scanavini MA. A new concept of mandibular dental arch forms with normal occlusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(1):10.e15-22.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.07.014
pubmed: 18174064
Mahalakshmi R, Varadharaja MM, Ninan RL, Kumar VV, Kanagasabapathy B, Balaji MDS. Evaluation of Horizontal Distance between WALA-FA Point in Angle’s Class I, Class II, and Class III Malocclusion. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021;13(Suppl 1):506–9.
doi: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_793_20
Esteves T, Salvatore Freitas KM, Vaz de Lima D, Cotrin P, Cançado RH, Valarelli FP, de Freitas MR, Gobbi de Oliveira RC. Comparison of WALA ridge and dental arch dimensions changes after orthodontic treatment using a passive self-ligating system or conventional fixed appliance. Indian J Dent Res. 2019;30(3):386–92.
doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_361_18
pubmed: 31397413
Ball RL, Miner RM, Will LA, Arai K. Comparison of dental and apical base arch forms in Class II Division 1 and Class I malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(1):41–50.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.026
pubmed: 20620832
Gupta D, Miner RM, Arai K, Will LA. Comparison of the mandibular dental and basal arch forms in adults and children with Class I and Class II malocclusions. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 2010;138(1):179–99.
Ronay V, Miner RM, Will LA, Arai K. Mandibular arch form: the relationship between dental and basal anatomy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(3):430–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.040
pubmed: 18774089
Rajesh M, Kishore M, Shetty KS. Comparison of anchorage loss following initial leveling and aligning using ROTH and MBT Prescription - A clinical prospective study. J Int Oral Health. 2014;6(2):16–21.
pubmed: 24876697
pmcid: 4033766
Su H, Xu K, Feng T, Han B, Chen G, Xu T. Three-dimensional change of molar position during alignment and leveling with PASS and MBT™: a randomized controlled trial. 2021;123(2):138–45.
McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. The transition from standard edgewise to preadjusted appliance systems. J Clin Orthod. 1989;23(3):142–53.
pubmed: 2606968
McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Anchorage control during leveling and aligning with a preadjusted appliance system. J Clin Orthod. 1991;25(11):687–96.
pubmed: 1814949