Abstract
The object of this study was to compare the clinical complications of 4 different appliances used in the early treatment of anterior open bite (AOB), and to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the number of complications among the appliances. Records from 99 Class I malocclusion patients with AOB treated using bonded spurs, BS, n = 25; chin cup, CC, n = 25; fixed palatal crib, FPC, n = 25; and removable palatal crib, RPC, n = 24) were examined. The total number and frequency of clinical complications that occurred over 12 months were described and compared by using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests (Dunn's post-test) (α = 5%, CI = 95%). The incidence of clinical complications was 66.7%, comprising: breakage, bond failure, maladjustment, allergy, soft-tissue lesion, loss of removable appliance and abandonment. Eighteen patients gave up treatment; this occurred more frequently in the groups with removable appliances. Regarding the total number of complications per patient, Group BS exhibited a significantly higher number than the other groups (p < 0.0001). A low frequency of complications (1 to 3) was found in the groups, except for Group BS, in which 8% of the patients presented moderate frequency (4 to 6). In terms of appliance types (fixed or removable), there was no difference in the incidence of complications (p > 0.094). The null hypothesis was rejected, since the BS group exhibited the highest total number and frequency of complications. There was no difference between fixed and removable appliances in terms of incidence of clinical complications, although more patients using removable appliances abandoned their treatment.
Highlights
The treatment of anterior open bite (AOB) is a challenge,[1,2,3,4,5,6] because mechanical techniques must be combined with both personal motivation and abstinence from certain habits
The aim of this study was to evaluate the number and frequency of clinical complications with four different appliances used in early AOB treatment: bonded spurs (BS), chin cup (CC), fixed palatal crib (FPC) and removable palatal crib (RPC), and to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the number of complications between the four types of appliances used to correct AOB
I children with a mean AOB reduction of 3.1 mm
Summary
The treatment of anterior open bite (AOB) is a challenge,[1,2,3,4,5,6] because mechanical techniques must be combined with both personal motivation and abstinence from certain habits. The cooperation of the patient and his/her parents plays an important role in the success of the treatment, regardless of whether the appliance is removable or fixed. AOB in growing patients, and clinical success in the use of several fixed and removable devices, available in a variety of shapes and designs. Of the professional and the viability of the therapy should always be taken into consideration. Another important issue to bear in mind regards maintaining the integrity of the appliance. Clinical complications can prolong the treatment, and add to the cost and risks involved.[19,21]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.