PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/4810
Browse
4 results
Search Results
Item Fixed Orthodontic Retainers: A Review(2019) Kartal, Yasemin; Kaya, Burcak; 31294414Orthodontic retention is defined as maintaining teeth in optimal aesthetic and functional position after treatment. Despite the necessity of retention phase and the factors influencing the stability of the teeth after orthodontic treatment was discussed by the orthodontist for a long time, it is accepted that a retention phase is essential for stability of orthodontic treatment results nowadays. Therefore, the application of a suitable retention method is important both for prevention of relapse after orthodontic treatment and for increasing patient satisfaction. Removable appliances had been used for many years for retention purposes. Later, fixed retainers were introduced to prevent relapse as having a number of advantages, such as better aesthetics, no need for patient cooperation, effectiveness, and suitability for lifelong retention. However, their need for precise bonding technique, fragility, and tendency to cause periodontal problems by weakening oral hygiene are some of their disadvantages.Item Appraisal of the relationship between tooth inclination, dehiscence, fenestration, and sagittal skeletal pattern with cone beam computed tomography(2019) Coskun, Ipek; Kaya, Burcak; 30741575Objectives: To examine the relationship between sagittal facial pattern and dehiscence/fenestration presence in conjunction with buccolingual tooth inclination by using cone beam computed tomography. Materials and Methods: The study was carried out on the cone beam computed tomography scans of the following three groups of patients (n = 20 in each group): Class I, Class II, Class III. Buccolingual tooth inclination, buccal dehiscence/fenestration presence, and lingual dehiscence/fenestration presence were evaluated on each tooth. Analysis of variance, Kruskall-Wallis H, Scheffe, and chi-square tests were used for statistical comparisons. Results: Differences (P<.05) were observed between the groups for inclination of upper incisors and all lower teeth except for second molars. Dehiscence prevalence in the upper buccal and posterior buccal regions was higher (P<.05) in the Class I group when compared with the other groups. Lower buccal and anterior buccal regions showed higher (P=.0001) dehiscence prevalence in all groups. No difference was observed in fenestration prevalence between the groups. The upper buccal and anterior buccal regions showed higher (P=.0001) fenestration prevalence in all groups. Conclusions: Orthodontists must consider concealed alveolar defects in treatment planning to avoid gingival recession or tooth mobility.Item Periodontal effects and survival rates of different mandibular retainers: comparison of bonding technique and wire thickness(2019) Gokce, Begum; Kaya, Burcak; 31365926Objectives: This non-randomized prospective cohort study aimed to compare the periodontal effects and success rates of mandibular canine-to-canine fixed retainers having different bonding techniques and wire thicknesses. Materials and methods: Hundred patients requiring retention after orthodontic treatment were assigned to five study groups (n = 20 in each group, 61 females/39 males, median age range 16.5-18.0 years). Retention was provided by 0.0215"/direct, 0.0215"/indirect, 0.0175"/direct, 0.0175"/indirect bonded multistranded wires and removable Essix appliances. The primary and secondary outcomes were periodontal effects and success rates. The patients were examined in 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months follow-up appointments. Plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, marginal recession, bleeding on probing, failure rate per retainer wire and survival of retainer wires were analysed by Kruskal-Wallis H, Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests. Results: Significant differences were observed between the fixed retainer (FR) and Essix (E) groups in gingival index scores at 1 month [mean FR: 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-1.44), mean E: 0.40 (95% CI: 0.14-0.69), mean difference: 0.73, P < 0.01], 3 months [mean FR: 0.97/1.01 (95% CI: 0.65-1.30/0.72-1.30), mean E: 0.52 (95% CI: 0.25-0.82), mean differences: 0.45/0.49, P < 0.05], 6 months [mean FR: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.62-1.27), mean E: 0.35 (95% CI: 0.15-0.58), mean difference: 0.59, P < 0.05] and in bleeding on probing scores at 1 month [mean FR: 3.05 (95% CI: 2.12-3.98), mean E: 1.15 (95% CI: 0.42-1.88), mean difference: 1.90, P < 0.01]. The survival rates of retainer wires were 85 per cent for the 0.0215" direct/indirect and 90 per cent for the 0.0175" direct/indirect groups for the 6 months follow-up. Limitations: Six months follow-up period, which demonstrates only short-term outcomes. Conclusions: The periodontal outcomes or survival rates of mandibular fixed retainers were not affected by bonding technique or wire thickness, whereas gingival health improved with Essix retainers but not with fixed retainers.Item Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics(2018) Kaya, Burcak; Coskun, Ipek; 30112468Orthodontists treat malocclusions by applying three-dimensional forces. For years, the diagnosis of this three-dimensional condition and the related treatment plan has been based on two-dimensional imaging. Lateral and anteroposterior cephalometric, panoramic, and periapical radiographs are some of the two-dimensional radiographs routinely used in orthodontics. Despite being highly beneficial in evaluating skeletal and dental relations, these radiographs fail to provide sufficient two-dimensional information in certain cases. The purpose of this compilation is to review the use of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics.