-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Customised fixed appliance systems and treatment duration
M. Papakostopoulou, D. Hurst,
Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, komentáře
NLK
ProQuest Central
od 2000-03-01 do Před 1 rokem
Open Access Digital Library
od 1998-01-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
od 2000-03-01 do Před 1 rokem
Public Health Database (ProQuest)
od 2000-03-01 do Před 1 rokem
PubMed
29930373
DOI
10.1038/sj.ebd.6401306
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- dítě MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- fixní ortodontický aparát MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- ortodoncie korekční MeSH
- ortodontické přístroje - design * MeSH
- trvání terapie * MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dítě MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- komentáře MeSH
DesignRandomised controlled trial.InterventionPatients aged 12-30 years requiring fixed orthodontic treatment were eligible and were randomly allocated to treatment with the Insignia customised orthodontic system or the Damon Q noncustomised orthodontic system.Outcome measureThe primary outcome measure was treatment duration. Secondary outcomes were quality of treatment result; the degree of improvement graded using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score; number of visits from the first visit after bonding to debonding; number of loose brackets; time required for treatment planning; and number of complaints.ResultsOne hundred and eighty patients entered the trial. Four were lost to follow-up and two did not complete treatment, so 174 were analysed. Treatment duration was 1.29 ± 0.35 years in the customised group and 1.24 ± 0.37 years in the noncustomised group. The PAR did not differ significantly between groups. However, the orthodontist had a significant effect on treatment duration, quality of treatment outcome and number of visits (P < 0.05). Compared to the noncustomised group, the customised group had more loose brackets, a longer planning time and more complaints.ConclusionsThe customised orthodontic system was not associated with significantly reduced treatment duration, and treatment quality was comparable between the two systems.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc20006812
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20200525102349.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 200511s2018 xxk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401306 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)29930373
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxk
- 100 1_
- $a Papakostopoulou, Margarita $u Postgraduate trainee in Orthodontics, Charles University, Prague.
- 245 10
- $a Customised fixed appliance systems and treatment duration / $c M. Papakostopoulou, D. Hurst,
- 520 9_
- $a DesignRandomised controlled trial.InterventionPatients aged 12-30 years requiring fixed orthodontic treatment were eligible and were randomly allocated to treatment with the Insignia customised orthodontic system or the Damon Q noncustomised orthodontic system.Outcome measureThe primary outcome measure was treatment duration. Secondary outcomes were quality of treatment result; the degree of improvement graded using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score; number of visits from the first visit after bonding to debonding; number of loose brackets; time required for treatment planning; and number of complaints.ResultsOne hundred and eighty patients entered the trial. Four were lost to follow-up and two did not complete treatment, so 174 were analysed. Treatment duration was 1.29 ± 0.35 years in the customised group and 1.24 ± 0.37 years in the noncustomised group. The PAR did not differ significantly between groups. However, the orthodontist had a significant effect on treatment duration, quality of treatment outcome and number of visits (P < 0.05). Compared to the noncustomised group, the customised group had more loose brackets, a longer planning time and more complaints.ConclusionsThe customised orthodontic system was not associated with significantly reduced treatment duration, and treatment quality was comparable between the two systems.
- 650 _2
- $a mladiství $7 D000293
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a dítě $7 D002648
- 650 12
- $a trvání terapie $7 D000081206
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a ortodontické přístroje - design $7 D016382
- 650 _2
- $a fixní ortodontický aparát $7 D000077744
- 650 _2
- $a ortodoncie korekční $7 D009971
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 650 _2
- $a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a komentáře $7 D016420
- 700 1_
- $a Hurst, Dominic $u Postgraduate trainee in Orthodontics, Charles University, Prague.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00011639 $t Evidence-based dentistry $x 1476-5446 $g Roč. 19, č. 2 (2018), s. 50
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29930373 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20200511 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20200525102349 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1525670 $s 1096868
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 19 $c 2 $d 50 $e - $i 1476-5446 $m Evidence-based dentistry $n Evid Based Dent $x MED00011639
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20200511