Sınıf II Divizyon 1 Malokluzyonlu Hastada Headger İle Çekimsiz Ortodontik Tedavi Başarısının PAR İndeksi İle İncelenmesi

Year 2021, , 296 - 299, 01.09.2021

Alev Aksoy , Luay Ali Zaidan

https://doi.org/10.19127/bshealthscience.884246

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı sınıf II Divizyon 1 malokluzyona sahip olan hastanın headgear ile tedavisinin sonuçlarının PAR (İyileştirme Değerlendirme Derecelendirme) indeksi ile incelenmesidir. PAR indeksi, tedavi öncesi ve sonrası alçı modeller kullanılarak tedavi sonucunu değerlendirmek hedefiyle oluşturulmuş bir indekstir. Çalışmamızda Sınıf II Divizyon 1 maloklüzyonu olan bir vakanın çekimsiz tedavisi Headgear ile yapıldı. Tedaviye bağlı olarak oklüzyonda meydana gelen değişiklikleri hesaplamak için (Ağırlıklı PAR puanı yüzdesindeki azalma- PAR %)'nın yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Ortodontik tedavi iyileşmesinin tespit edilmesinde PAR (%) yönteminin, tedavi öncesi PAR puanına göre değişikliği yansıttığı bilinmektedir. Olgumuzun PAR değerleri; PARbaşı 29, PARson 8'e düştü, PARfark 21 puanlık bir düşüş gösterdi ve PAR % = %72 hesaplandı ve bu durumda, PAR %, %70'ten daha büyük olduğu için "büyük ölçüde iyileştirmiş-çok başarılı" olarak kabul edildi.

Keywords

Sınıf II maloklüzyon, PAR indeksi, Headgear, Çekimsiz ortodontik tedavi

Evaluate the Success of Non Extraction Orthodontic Treatment with Headgear by Using PAR Index in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Patient

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of headgear treatment of a patient with class II Division 1 malocclusion by using PAR (Peer Assessment Rating) index. PAR index is an index created to evaluate the treatment outcome using plaster models before and after treatment. In our study, a patient with class II Division 1 malocclusion was treated with Headgear (without extraction). The method of (decrease in the percentage of weighted PAR score-PAR %) was used to calculate the treatment-related changes of occlusion in this patient. It is known that the PAR% method reflects the change according to the pre-treatment score in determining the orthodontic treatment improvement. PAR values of our case; PARbefore 29, PARafter decreased to 8, PARdifferent decreased by 21 points and PAR% = 72% was calculated, and in this case, PAR% as it was greater than 70% was considered "greatly improved- very successful".

Keywords

Class II malocclusion, PAR index, Headgear, Non-extraction treatment

References

• Allen DR, Sadowsky PL, Hurst D. 2001. Orthodontic outcomes assessment using the peer assessment rating index. The Angle Orthod, 71(3): 164-169.
• Birkeland K, Furevik J, Bøe OE, Wisth PJ. 1997. Evaluation of treatment and post-treatment changes by the PAR Index. European J Orthod, 19(3): 279-288.
• Chew MT, Sandham A. 2001. An assessment of orthodontic treatment using occlusal indices. Singapore Dental J, 24(1): 9-16.
• Fadiga MS, Diouf JS, Ba KD, Gueye I, Ngom PI, Diagne F. 2014. The PAR index for evaluation of treatment outcomes in orthodontics: a clinical audit of 50 cases. Int Orthod, 12(1): 84-99.
• Graber TM. 1969. Dentofacial orthopedics. In Current Orthod Concepts Tech, 2: 919-988.
• Hellman M. 1931. What about diagnosis and treatment of Class II malocclusion of the teeth?. Int J Orthod, Oral Surg Radiog, 17(2): 113-155.
• Janson G, da Costa Brambilla A, Henriques JFC, de Freitas MR, Neves LS. 2004. Class II treatment success rate in 2-and 4-premolar extraction protocols. American J Orthod Dentofacial Orthopedics, 125(4): 472-479.
• Lau PYW, Wong RWK. 2006. Risks and complications in orthodontic treatment. HongKong Dental J, 3: 15-22.
• McNamara JA. 1981. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8–10 years of age. The Angle Orthod, 51(3): 177-202.
• Otuyemi OD, Jones SP. 1995. Methods of assessing and grading malocclusion: A review. Australian Orthod J, 14(1): 21-27.
• Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM, Ackerman JL. 2007. Contemporary orthodontic appliances. Contempor Orthod, 4: 396-430.
• Proffit WR, Phillips C, Tulloch JF, Medland PH. 1992. Surgical versus orthodontic correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion in adolescents: effects and indications. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognathic Surg, 7(4): 209-220.
• Ramanathan C. 2006. PAR index in the evaluation of the stability of the orthodontic treatment results: A review. Acta Medica-Hradec Kralove, 49(4): 203.
• Richmond S, Shaw WC, Stephens CD, Webb WG, Roberts CT, Andrews M. 1993. Orthodontics in the general dental service of England and Wales: a critical assessment of standards. British Dental J, 174(9): 315-329.
• Seehra J, Fleming PS, Newton T, DiBiase AT. 2011. Bullying in orthodontic patients and its relationship to malocclusion, self-esteem and oral health-related quality of life. J Orthod, 38(4): 247-256.
• Shaw WC, Richmond S, O'Brien KD. 1995. The use of occlusal indices: a European perspective. American J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 107(1): 1-10.