Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-06-02, 10:40:19 | version 1.38.0
K i n e s i o g r a p h i c e v a l u a t i o n i n o r t h o d o n t i c p a t i e n t s Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 10 Restriction of mandibular lowering in patients in the fourth group. Fig. 11 Lateral mandibular movements in patients in the third group (the first and second subgroups) and the fifth group. Fig. 12 Morpho-functional diagnostics using kinesiography. Fig. 12 Discussion A number of authors have carried out particular assessment in order to compare two approaches to patient treatment: extraction or nonex- traction.25–27 Various combinations of tooth ex- traction have been examined, and most of these cases were located in the area of the premolars (from one to four teeth). The requisite data were gained from models and radiographs before, during and after the treatment. Also, authors compared changes in extraction versus nonex- traction orthodontic treatment using pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms, comparing the skeletal, dental and soft-tissue profile changes, but no functional diagnostics or TMJ condition study was performed. For example, an investigation was carried out at the Univer- sity of California, San Francisco Graduate Ortho- dontic Clinic on treatment for correction of a Class I or II malocclusion. There were 148 pa- tients examined. With regard to the primary decision as to whether extraction or nonex- traction treatment was to be preferred, agree- ment among clinicians was higher than had been anticipated, but how did the clinicians make their decision on whether to extract? Crowding was cited as the first reason in 49% of decisions to extract, followed by incisor protrusion (14%). Clinicians focused heavily on appearance-relat- ed factors that are qualitatively determinable by physical examination of the surface structures of the face and teeth, but no functional tests were conducted.28, 29 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 3 | Issue 2/2017 49