| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.58 MB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
OBJETIVOS: Verificar se o tratamento da distoclusão com o aparelho propulsor mandibular ForsusTM Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD) influencia a dimensão faríngea sagital e qual o grau dessa influência.
MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Neste estudo, pacientes tratados com FFRD (n=24) foram comparados com um grupo de controlo (n=27), constituído por indivíduos que não sofreram qualquer tipo de propulsão mandibular durante o tratamento ortodôntico. As idades médias foram de 13,56 anos no Grupo 1 e 13,19 anos no Grupo 2. Telerradiografias iniciais e pós-tratamento foram analisadas e as alterações das dimensões faríngeas foram comparadas. Posteriormente, foram comparados os resultados de forma a verificar a existência de uma relação entre as diferentes medidas no mesmo indivíduo. A faringe foi dividida entre nasofaringe, orofaringe e hipofaringe. O teste T-student e análise ANOVA foram aplicados e foi estabelecido um nível de significância de p < 0.05.
RESULTADOS: Não se verificaram diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os dois grupos, em nenhum dos três níveis medidos. Ao nível da nasofaringe, verificou-se no Grupo 1 um aumento da dimensão, em média de 1,43 mm, enquanto que no Grupo 2 este aumento foi de 0,54 mm (p=0,36). Já na orofaringe, o Grupo 1 apresentou um aumento de 1,2 mm e o Grupo 2 de 0,64 mm (p=0,58). Por fim, foi na hipofaringe a região com menores diferenças entre os grupos, observando-se um aumento de 0,85 mm no Grupo 1 e 1,07 mm no Grupo 2 (p=0,83). Por outro lado, a análise ANOVA revelou resultados estatisticamente não significativos na relação de proporção quanto ao aumento das dimensões de cada medida de cada indivíduo (p=0,59).
CONCLUSÕES: O aparelho FFRD não parece promover alterações significativas nas dimensões faringeas sagitais.
AIM: To evaluate how therapy with the ForsusTM Fatigue Resistant Device affects airway dimensions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this study, patients treated with Forsus (n=24) were compared with a control group (n=27) that did not undergo any kind of orthodontic treatment with functional appliances. The mean age of individuals was 13.56 years in Group 1 and 13,19 in Group 2. Initial and post-treatment cephalometric radiographs were analyzed, and the sagittal pharyngeal airway changes were evaluated between the two groups. Later were compared the growth in the different levels of the same subject. The pharyngeal airway was divided into the nasopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx. The t-test and ANOVA were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: There were no significant changes in airway dimensions between the two groups. At nasopharynx level, the mean growth was 1,43 mm on Group 1 and 0,54 mm on Group 2 (p=0,36). At oropharynx level, the growth was 1,2 mm and 0,64 mm on Group 1 and 2 (p=0,58), respectively. At hypopharynx, there was an average of 0,85 mm of growth on Group 1 and 1,07 mm on Group 2 (p=0,83). The ANOVA analysis didn’t show any statistically significant results for the comparison between levels within the same subject. CONCLUSIONS: Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device does not appear to cause any significant posterior airway changes.
AIM: To evaluate how therapy with the ForsusTM Fatigue Resistant Device affects airway dimensions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this study, patients treated with Forsus (n=24) were compared with a control group (n=27) that did not undergo any kind of orthodontic treatment with functional appliances. The mean age of individuals was 13.56 years in Group 1 and 13,19 in Group 2. Initial and post-treatment cephalometric radiographs were analyzed, and the sagittal pharyngeal airway changes were evaluated between the two groups. Later were compared the growth in the different levels of the same subject. The pharyngeal airway was divided into the nasopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx. The t-test and ANOVA were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: There were no significant changes in airway dimensions between the two groups. At nasopharynx level, the mean growth was 1,43 mm on Group 1 and 0,54 mm on Group 2 (p=0,36). At oropharynx level, the growth was 1,2 mm and 0,64 mm on Group 1 and 2 (p=0,58), respectively. At hypopharynx, there was an average of 0,85 mm of growth on Group 1 and 1,07 mm on Group 2 (p=0,83). The ANOVA analysis didn’t show any statistically significant results for the comparison between levels within the same subject. CONCLUSIONS: Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device does not appear to cause any significant posterior airway changes.
Description
Dissertação para obtenção do grau de Mestre no Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz
Keywords
Forsus Aparelhos funcionais Propulsão mandibular Vias aéreas superiores Dimensão faríngea
