| pubmed-article:9577105 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0332307 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0205111 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0035851 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1274040 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0220825 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0243112 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0206034 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:issue | 2 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:dateCreated | 1998-6-16 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:abstractText | The purpose of this paper was to compare radiographically the prevalence and degree of apical root resorption after treatment with a fully programmed edgewise appliance (FPA) and a partly programmed edgewise appliance (PPA) in a randomized multipractice clinical trial. Two groups of patients with Class II malocclusions were treated orthodontically. The type of treatment was randomly assigned by a computer program. During fixed appliance therapy, one group was treated according to the precepts of the straight wire concept (FPA; n = 32) while the other was treated with conventional full edgewise mechanics (PPA; n = 29). Treatment times were recorded. Radiographs of the maxillary incisors were made before and after active treatment with fixed appliances using the bisecting angle technique. To correct for different projecting angles the pairs of radiographs were digitally reconstructed. The prevalence and degree of root resorption were assessed. The mean treatment time was 1.8 years and 1.6 years for treatment with FPA and PPA, respectively. The mean amount of loss of tooth length was 8.2% for the patients treated with FPA and 7.5% for the patients treated with PPA. No statistically significant differences could be assessed between both groups at the end of active treatment. The mean prevalence of apical root resorption was 75% for the patients treated with FPA and 55% for the patients treated with PPA. Statistical evaluation showed no significant differences. We concluded that the prevalence and degree of root resorption is independent of the appliances as used in this study. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:commentsCorrections | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:citationSubset | D | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:issn | 1434-5293 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:SanderinkG... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:van't HofM... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:Kuijpers-Jagt... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:ReukersE AEA | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:issnType | Print | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:volume | 59 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:pagination | 100-9 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:dateRevised | 2006-11-15 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:9577105-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:9577105-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:9577105-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:9577105-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:9577105-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:9577105-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:9577105-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:9577105-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:9577105-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:9577105-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:9577105-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:year | 1998 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:articleTitle | Radiographic evaluation of apical root resorption with 2 different types of edgewise appliances. Results of a randomized clinical trial. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:affiliation | Department of Orthodontics and Oral Biology, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:publicationType | Clinical Trial | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:publicationType | Comparative Study | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:publicationType | Randomized Controlled Trial | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:9577105 | pubmed:publicationType | Multicenter Study | lld:pubmed |
