RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To introduce and validate newly designed computer software to aid in the diagnosis of anterior open bite (AOB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The software was constructed based on the algorithm of a standardized open bite checklist, which considered skeletal, dental, and soft tissue components, as well as smile characteristics. Feeding the software with this input yielded a digital form output (DFO) in the guise of a diagnostic report characterizing the AOB phenotype, contributing components, severity, associated problems, and functional factors. For validation, DFO was compared to a conventional form output (CFO), created in a standardized manner according to expert opinions. Agreement between the DFO and CFO in terms of AOB phenotype was the primary outcome, while the secondary outcome was the number of missing diagnostic components in either method. RESULTS: Percentage of agreement between CFO and DFO was 82.2%, with a kappa coefficient of 0.78, which is considered a good level of agreement. There was a statistically significant relationship between the number of missing diagnostic components in CFO and level of disagreement, which rendered the DFO more reliable. CONCLUSIONS: Newly constructed software represents an efficient and valid diagnostic tool for AOB and its contributing components. There was good agreement between CFO and DFO, with the latter being more comprehensive and reliable. The algorithm built in the software can be used as the basis for a future artificial intelligence model to aid in the diagnosis of AOB.
Asunto(s)
Mordida Abierta , Humanos , Mordida Abierta/diagnóstico , Inteligencia Artificial , Lista de Verificación , PredicciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To compare the root resorption resulting from miniscrew-supported maxillary posterior dentoalveolar intrusion using two different force magnitudes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with skeletal open bite, indicated for maxillary posterior dentoalveolar intrusion, were recruited and randomly assigned to the comparison or intervention groups. The comparison group involved applying 200 g of intrusive force per segment, which measured 20 g per root, while this force was 400 g per segment in the intervention group, measuring 40 g per root. RESULTS: Twenty participants were included in the final analysis after 2 patients dropped out, 1 in each group, to end up with 10 subjects (200 roots) per group. There was statistically significant root resorption of 0.84 ± 0.96 mm and 0.93 ± 1.00 mm in the comparison and the intervention groups, respectively. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Root resorption inevitably took place in association with orthodontic intrusion. However, increasing the magnitude of the intrusive force did not increase the amount of root resorption, either statistically or clinically.
Asunto(s)
Mordida Abierta , Métodos de Anclaje en Ortodoncia , Resorción Radicular , Adulto , Humanos , Maxilar/diagnóstico por imagen , Resorción Radicular/diagnóstico por imagen , Resorción Radicular/etiología , Técnicas de Movimiento Dental/efectos adversosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of two different force magnitudes on maxillary posterior segment intrusion using mini-screws. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the two force magnitudes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with skeletal open bite and a dental open bite ranging from 3 to 8 mm were recruited for this trial. The comparator group had 200 g of intrusive force applied for posterior segment intrusion, whereas 400 g of force was applied in the intervention group. Primary outcomes were the amount of posterior teeth intrusion and anterior open bite closure. RESULTS: Twenty-two subjects were randomized to include 11 participants in each group. One participant dropped out in each group, leaving us with 10 subjects to be analyzed per group. There was statistically significant posterior teeth intrusion of 2.42 ± 2.06 and 2.26 ± 1.87 mm for the comparator and intervention groups, respectively, with no difference between them. Statistically significant open bite closure was achieved in both groups, measuring 2.24 ± 1.18 and 3.15 ± 1.06 mm in the comparator and intervention groups, respectively, with no difference between them. CONCLUSIONS: Both the 200 g and 400 g intrusive forces yielded similar outcomes in terms of posterior teeth intrusion and anterior open bite closure.