Orthodontic treatment demand in young adolescents – are parents familiar with their children's desires and reasons?

Author(s):  
Mia Uhac ◽  
Tihana Zibar Belasic ◽  
Vjera Perkovic ◽  
Marko Matijevic ◽  
Stjepan Spalj
2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Lourenço Romano ◽  
Alberto Consolaro

The use of mini-implants have made a major contribution to orthodontic treatment. Demand has aroused scientific curiosity about implant placement procedures and techniques. However, the reasons for instability have not yet been made totally clear. The aim of this article is to establish a relationship between implant placement technique and mini-implant success rates by means of examining the following hypotheses: 1) Sites of poor alveolar bone and little space between roots lead to inadequate implant placement; 2) Different sites require mini-implants of different sizes! Implant size should respect alveolar bone diameter; 3) Properly determining mini-implant placement site provides ease for implant placement and contributes to stability; 4) The more precise the lancing procedures, the better the implant placement technique; 5) Self-drilling does not mean higher pressures; 6) Knowing where implant placement should end decreases the risk of complications and mini-implant loss.


2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-21
Author(s):  
Bashar R. El-Momani ◽  
Ahmad M. Tarawneh

Odontology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-116
Author(s):  
Martina Brumini ◽  
Martina Slaj ◽  
Visnja Katic ◽  
Andrej Pavlic ◽  
Magda Trinajstic Zrinski ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Timothy T. Wheeler ◽  
Susan P. McGorray ◽  
Lisa Yurkiewicz ◽  
Stephen D. Keeling ◽  
Gregory J. King

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 392-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Tuncer ◽  
N Canigur Bavbek ◽  
B Balos Tuncer ◽  
A Ayhan Bani ◽  
B Çelik

Objectives: To examine patients’ and parents’ perceptions and expectations from orthodontic treatment. Study Design: 491 patients (274 female, 217 male) aged 14–22 years, and 399 parents (245 female, 154 male) completed a questionnaire about preferences, needs and expectations about orthodontic treatment, and scored the present problem. Continuous variables were compared by Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests, whereas Chi-square test was used for categorical variables. Results: Patients’(77.1%) and parents’(84.6%), decision about orthodontic treatments were influenced by suggestion of dentists. Patients who decided to attend to clinic by themselves were higher than parents (p=0.006). Dental aesthetics was the determinant factor for treatment demand for patients(61.0%) and parents(57.3%). Improvement in oral functions was more important for Class III patients than Class I patients (p=0.040). Adult patients/parents with higher education gave more importance to oral functions as well as dental aesthetics (p=0.031). There was no difference among Angle classifications regarding orthodontic problem scores. Parents found media sources valuable (p=0.018) but majority expected dentists for information about orthodontic treatments. Education degree of adult patients/parents effected this decision(p=0.002). Conclusions: Desire to have better dental aesthetics was the primary motivating factor for all participants. Clinicians should consider concerns of Class III patients about oral functions during treatment planning.


2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo César Werneck ◽  
Fernanda Silva Mattos ◽  
Márcio Garcia Da Silva ◽  
Renata Falchete Do Prado ◽  
Adriano Marotta Araújo

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document