We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Skeletal and soft tissue point A and B changes following orthodontic treatment of Nepalese Class I bimaxillary protrusive patients.
Angle Orthodontist 2010 January
OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that there is no correlation in the interrelationships of skeletal and soft tissue points A and B with anterior teeth retraction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty adult Class I bimaxillary protrusion patients treated with preadjusted appliances after first premolar extraction were included. Pretreatment and posttreatment variables were compared using paired t-test, and the relationship of soft and hard tissue variables was studied using Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression equation.
RESULTS: Mean point A and soft tissue point A (sA) were retracted 2.7 mm (P < .001) and 1.7 mm (P < .001), and mean point B and soft tissue point B (sB) were retracted 2.1 mm (P < .001) and 1.2 mm (P < .001), respectively. Mean ratio of retraction of point A with sA and point B with sB was 1.5:1 and 1.7:1, respectively. A significant degree of correlation existed between retraction of point A and soft tissue point A (r = 0.648, P < .01) and point B and soft tissue point B (r = 0.806, P < .01). Linear regression analysis used to predict the changes in sA and sB showed significant relationship between point A and sA (r = 0.543, F = 11.7, R2 = 0.29, P < .001) and point B and sB (r = 0.825, F = 59.7, R2 = 0.68, P < .001). Decreases in hard and soft tissue convexity were due to the retraction of the skeletal and soft tissue points A and B in addition to the lips retraction.
CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis is rejected. Retraction of skeletal point A and B lead to retraction of sA and sB under controlled root positions. Nearly proportionate changes existed in the skeletal points and overlying corresponding soft tissue points.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty adult Class I bimaxillary protrusion patients treated with preadjusted appliances after first premolar extraction were included. Pretreatment and posttreatment variables were compared using paired t-test, and the relationship of soft and hard tissue variables was studied using Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression equation.
RESULTS: Mean point A and soft tissue point A (sA) were retracted 2.7 mm (P < .001) and 1.7 mm (P < .001), and mean point B and soft tissue point B (sB) were retracted 2.1 mm (P < .001) and 1.2 mm (P < .001), respectively. Mean ratio of retraction of point A with sA and point B with sB was 1.5:1 and 1.7:1, respectively. A significant degree of correlation existed between retraction of point A and soft tissue point A (r = 0.648, P < .01) and point B and soft tissue point B (r = 0.806, P < .01). Linear regression analysis used to predict the changes in sA and sB showed significant relationship between point A and sA (r = 0.543, F = 11.7, R2 = 0.29, P < .001) and point B and sB (r = 0.825, F = 59.7, R2 = 0.68, P < .001). Decreases in hard and soft tissue convexity were due to the retraction of the skeletal and soft tissue points A and B in addition to the lips retraction.
CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis is rejected. Retraction of skeletal point A and B lead to retraction of sA and sB under controlled root positions. Nearly proportionate changes existed in the skeletal points and overlying corresponding soft tissue points.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app