Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, Alev
dc.contributor.authorArman-Ozcirpici, Aya
dc.contributor.authorErken, Seda
dc.contributor.authorPolat-Ozsoy, Omur
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-06T10:50:41Z
dc.date.available2019-10-06T10:50:41Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.issn0141-5387
dc.identifier.urihttps://watermark.silverchair.com/cju094.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAlYwggJSBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggJDMIICPwIBADCCAjgGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMry8jTuz5zqjToMA1AgEQgIICCZn4R93dO_L6tnP04B1AgL5cMu2K4HZWjgDsUFfWeyz8gpjNh5-jgy6kURPZyjFTxslYD1hi6vFDbSm6hrUzB3p66agmnApGWKtGhJSp335jC6W8gxsN8XXC_atvHtEQo1oEkLToR30mKzQll6ZatE1VoY3BevNY2VBp_DpH3zqH11-KA1ZIrKjdzZKOHmVPbgzw12R6U92yj64IhZEGtqK6MjjuAqplFeTFqVow1Iz8GiEzzfernD_jJeHm2L2cbh4iRtdyBpqSri9FY0-fWQJR3OwXxP0dn65i4oAF0j6ORKKikc4D1xTDWyIEkhlt9xrzmely9LPHEQVq0m7HREwCt45F-sQiyHAx5YUEsQCgAO268m1MepGkdqX66fw2jl9fpYOEprKUjNTrWUvnPTwuyeeV4KktnLHXmRdGLjws_w5MrK-GVchEMSyITk3USv41VKHp2u2MiI7gL9UIHjRDxflkg9sahLxdI6UQmJP-bVpQlBtgPUtJKjoi91x08M17y-sSjJsM8Mx7j7NWK5xBwquQFFiVOtOPmBX0L6XgaFdmiUFXuY3WIfRa5TTlN2PJiIgLU_ir2psfmgyagY-OAOAZNoMP3ftBK_heAtDWo-yU-tYzG9YkenefHVUGVJ-FlX-o-sE_F3r-OTYzgMDvicwZAZlA6_bStcJFI-tCWslaSJ2QT0DF
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11727/4049
dc.description.abstractObjective: This study evaluates the dentoskeletal effects of a mini-implant-supported maxillary expansion (MISME) appliance in comparison with two types of conventional expansion methods. Methods: Records of 42 patients with bilateral or unilateral posterior crossbite were included in this study. The patients were divided into three groups. In group 1, four miniscrews were placed to the palatal region and an acrylic expansion device was bonded on these screws. A bonded maxillary expansion appliance was used in group 2, while a banded expansion appliance was used in group 3. Measurements from cephalometric, postero-anterior radiographs, and dental casts taken before and after expansion were evaluated statistically. Results: ANB angle increased significantly in group 1 and 3. MISME group also showed an increase of SNA angle. Measurements regarding the vertical dimension did not change with MISME but significant posterior rotation was found in group 2 and 3. Overbite value showed a significant decrease in group 2 and 3, but remained stable in group 1. The nasal, maxillary, maxillary intermolar widths showed significant increases in all groups. The difference between MISME group and other groups in maxillary width was significant indicating more skeletal expansion in MISME group. The maxillary molars showed significant buccal tipping in group 2 and 3, while lingual tipping of molars was found in MISME group. Conclusions: MISME can be a better alternative to bonded expansion particularly in patients with vertical growth patterns and lack of anchorage teeth.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1093/ejo/cju094en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectRAPID PALATAL EXPANSIONen_US
dc.subjectCOMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY EVALUATIONen_US
dc.subjectTRANSPALATAL DISTRACTIONen_US
dc.subjectORTHODONTIC ANCHORAGEen_US
dc.subjectTITANIUM SCREWSen_US
dc.subjectMIXED DENTITIONen_US
dc.subjectDENTAL CHANGESen_US
dc.subjectSKELETALen_US
dc.subjectEXPANDERSen_US
dc.subjectRESORPTIONen_US
dc.titleComparison of short-term effects of mini-implant-supported maxillary expansion appliance with two conventional expansion protocolsen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICSen_US
dc.identifier.volume37en_US
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.startpage556en_US
dc.identifier.endpage564en_US
dc.identifier.wos000362967200017


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record