FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4249467716> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4249467716 endingPage "A12" @default.
• W4249467716 startingPage "A11" @default.
• W4249467716 abstract "Although this is the type of study we all want to see, it has both advantages and disadvantages. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to compare differences in the duration of orthodontic treatment and the number of visits required by patients being treated with 2 different fixed appliances: SmartClip and Victory brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). Although a plethora of advantages of self-ligating bracket systems has been claimed by many manufacturers, perhaps the most compelling potential advantage would be a reduction in overall treatment time. These researchers determined that a sample size of 66 patients was required to demonstrate a clinically meaningful difference, and they used a computer-generated randomization program to allocate the patients into 2 groups before treatment. All subjects were treated according to a predetermined archwire sequence during leveling and alignment. Of the 66 subjects who started treatment, 54 (81.8%) completed the study. The mean duration of orthodontic treatment was 19.92 months overall: 18.32 months in the Victory group and 21.41 months in the SmartClip group. A mean of 15.7 visits was required for those treated with Victory, with 2 additional visits for those treated with SmartClip. The investigators found it interesting that treatment durations varied considerably between clinicians; however, the treatment duration seemed to be quite uniform for individual operators. “It seems unlikely, therefore, that a fixed appliance system would have a significant bearing on the duration of orthodontic treatment or on the number of visits required. Moreover, duration is likely to be governed by the skill, experience, and objectives of the treating clinician,” noted the authors. Although this study appears to have been carefully managed as originally designed, greater appreciation would have been noted by reviewers if the authors had included the CONSORT statement in addition to the flow diagram as is customary for all RCTs published in the AJO-DO. This statement offers a standard way for authors to prepare reports of trial findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation. The recent publication of the CONSORT 2010 Statement now makes the previous version, CONSORT 2001, outdated. Users of the guideline are strongly recommended to refer to this up-to-date version while writing or reviewing reports of RCTs. I can remember every patient who had a palatally impacted maxillary canine that I planned but failed to bring into occlusion. Although I was always very concerned with my few failures, I rarely had time to delve into the reasons for them. That is why this article will be of interest to every orthodontist. The purpose of the study was to examine the records of patients with an impacted canine whose original orthodontic treatment did not resolve the impaction. The authors looked at 28 patients who were referred for treatment of at least 1 impacted canine after treatment of the impaction failed once. The patients completed questionnaires, and the collected data are presented in this study. As you might expect, the study described some reasons for failure of eruption in this sample. The mean duration of the failed treatments was 26.2 ± 17.2 months, and the reasons most commonly cited for failure were inadequate anchorage (48.6%), mistaken location and directional traction (40.5%), and ankylosis (32.4%). In several subjects, 2 or more reasons for failure were cited. The success rate of the revised treatments was 71.4%, and the mean duration was 14.4 ± 7.2 months. Repeated surgery was needed in 62.9% of the subjects who had corrective treatment, mostly to redirect the ligature wires. The corrective measures included 3-dimensional imaging and a change in the direction of traction. Anchorage was reinforced with dental and skeletal means. For practitioners, the findings of this study lead to the conclusion that a cone-beam computed tomography scan to obtain an accurate positional diagnosis of the impacted canine before treatment might be a good idea. This is a study about the impact of orthognathic-surgical treatment on quality of life as assessed by the oral health impact profile (OHIP) index. A Brazilian version of the OHIP-14 showed psychometric properties similar to those of the original questionnaire. Studies that focus on patients' perceptions during the actual treatment phase are rare, probably because treatment with all its inconveniences is transitory, and the focus is usually on the situation after treatment. It is also useful, however, to obtain information related to how undergoing treatment affects patients' quality of life. This report describes the findings of research carried out at the Oral Surgery Clinic of the State University of Rio de Janeiro. The participants were 20 patients who were planning to have orthognathic-surgical treatment (initial group), 70 patients who were in presurgical orthodontic treatment (presurgical group), and 27 patients who had completed orthognathic surgery and presurgical orthodontics but were still having postsurgical treatment (postsurgical group). The use of standardized instruments for measuring the impact of oral problems and their treatments on oral health-related problems and quality of life is essential because it allows us to evaluate whether clinical procedures have a real benefit on people's lives. These authors found high levels of satisfaction after orthognathic surgery, and patients scored higher on measures of body image (especially on the facial and dental image components) and self-esteem. Nevertheless, a limitation of this study was the lack of control samples to compare the studied groups with normal subjects and the postsurgery group with those who had already completed orthodontics, to put in perspective the magnitude of the oral health impacts. These data support the findings of previous studies that orthognathic surgery has numerous favorable effects. Sex analysis pointed out that female patients report a greater impact than males of their oral status on quality of life." @default.
• W4249467716 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4249467716 creator A5082613355 @default.
• W4249467716 date "2010-06-01" @default.
• W4249467716 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W4249467716 title "Editor's choice" @default.
• W4249467716 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.04.008" @default.
• W4249467716 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W4249467716 type Work @default.
• W4249467716 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4249467716 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4249467716 hasAuthorship W4249467716A5082613355 @default.
• W4249467716 hasBestOaLocation W42494677161 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C112758219 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C129848803 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C133769200 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C204243189 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C2779220109 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C105795698 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C112758219 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C124952713 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C127413603 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C129848803 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C133769200 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C141071460 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C142362112 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C168563851 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C17744445 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C1862650 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C199343813 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C199539241 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C204243189 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C2779220109 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C33923547 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C71924100 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C78519656 @default.
• W4249467716 hasConceptScore W4249467716C94625758 @default.
• W4249467716 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W4249467716 hasLocation W42494677161 @default.
• W4249467716 hasOpenAccess W4249467716 @default.
• W4249467716 hasPrimaryLocation W42494677161 @default.
• W4249467716 hasRelatedWork W1932112545 @default.
• W4249467716 hasRelatedWork W1991541693 @default.
• W4249467716 hasRelatedWork W2040878127 @default.
• W4249467716 hasRelatedWork W2105059445 @default.
• W4249467716 hasRelatedWork W2138201488 @default.
• W4249467716 hasRelatedWork W2611796762 @default.
• W4249467716 hasRelatedWork W2794669810 @default.
• W4249467716 hasRelatedWork W3087695377 @default.
• W4249467716 hasRelatedWork W3159466213 @default.
• W4249467716 hasRelatedWork W4317868882 @default.
• W4249467716 hasVolume "137" @default.
• W4249467716 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4249467716 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4249467716 workType "article" @default.