Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Timothy T Wheeler

Publications and source records attributed to Timothy T Wheeler.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Centrographic analysis of 1-phase versus 2-phase treatment for Class II malocclusion.

INTRODUCTION: Cephalometric analyses have been used by orthodontists to track growth and monitor treatment effects. Most of these analyses have normative values to which patients are compared, but some "normal" patients vary quite a bit from the normative values. The centrographic analysis is a visual analysis with no angles to measure or normative values to compare. After a reference plane is developed, the relative position of variable landmarks can be seen. METHODS: We used the centroid centrographic analysis to study the effects of 1-phase and 2-phase orthodontic treatment. Phase 1 treatment consisted of bionator (n = 66), headgear/biteplane (n = 69), or observation (n = 65) until a Class I molar relationship was achieved or 2 years had elapsed. After 1 year, all subjects underwent full orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. RESULTS: Centrographic analysis showed that early treatment has effects on the mandible. However, the differences were not apparent by the end of fixed appliance treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The skeletal effects of phase 1 treatment disappear by the end of fixed appliance treatment.

Activator Appliances↗
PubMed2003

Comparison of peer assessment ratings (PAR) from 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols for Class II malocclusions.

The purpose of this study was to compare the dentoalveolar outcomes after 1-phase and 2-phase orthodontic treatment of Class II malocclusions. Class II subjects (n = 208) were randomized to 1-phase or 2-phase treatment with either bionator or headgear/biteplate. The peer assessment rating (PAR) was calculated from pretreatment, prephase 2, and final study models. Chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to evaluate the differences among treatment groups, sexes, races, pretreatment, mandibular plane angle, severity, and compliance. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to examine relationships between PAR at different times. The dropout rate of 24.6% did not adversely affect the ability to detect differences of clinical importance or impact treatment groups disproportionately. There were no significant differences with respect to initial PAR or final PAR among the 3 treatment protocols. The 2 early treatment groups had lower PAR scores than the 1-phase group before phase 2 (P =.0001). Lower PAR scores were achieved at both the beginning and end of phase 2 in girls (P =.03; P =.02, respectively). There were differences in the pre-phase-2 and post-phase-2 PAR scores based on initial severity (P =.0006; P =.02, respectively), with greater improvement in the patients whose malocclusions were less severe initially. Mandibular plane angle had no effect on pre-phase-2 or post-phase-2 PAR scores. These results do not support the hypothesis that different dentoalveolar outcomes are obtained between 2-phase and 1-phase treatment of Class II malocclusions.

Activator Appliances↗
PubMed2002

Effectiveness of early treatment of Class II malocclusion.

The purpose of this study was to examine and report the effectiveness of early treatment with the headgear/biteplate and the bionator in patients with Class II malocclusion regardless of the mechanism of correction and to compare early-treatment results with changes over a similar time period in an observation group. The role of factors such as compliance was examined to determine their contribution to effective treatment. The experimental design was a prospective, longitudinal, randomized controlled trial. At the end of the early-treatment period, all 3 groups differed significantly (overall, P = .001) in percentage of treatment goal achieved, with median values of 83% for the bionator group, 100% for the headgear group, and 14% for the observation group. In both treated and observation subjects, the percentages of goal achieved varied by initial molar class severity (treated, P =.0205; observation, P = .0040) and race (treated, P = .0314; observation, P = .0416). Significant correlations in the treated subjects were identified between percentage of goal achieved and bone age (13 bones) (r = 0.16; P = .037), bone age (20 bones) (r = 0.16; P = .043), compliance (r = 0.26; P = .0005), and initial overjet (r = -0.26; P = .0095). Significant correlations were not detected in the observation group. Sex, treatment group, age, mandibular plane angle, pretreatment, and retention did not significantly affect percentage of goal achieved among the treated and the observation subjects. Correlation between normalized compliance scores and percentage of goal achieved was high for both bionator (r = 0.50) and headgear subjects (r = 0.49) at the end of treatment. Multivariate analysis suggested that headgear may be superior to bionator/biteplane in achieving a Class II correction during early treatment.

Activator Appliances↗
PubMed2002

A 3-dimensional analysis of molar movement during headgear treatment.

Superimposition of serial cephalograms provides a limited description of tooth movement that could be complemented by data obtained from serial dental casts. The aim of this study was to develop a mathematical method for superimposing 3-dimensional data obtained from selected landmarks on longitudinally collected dental casts to describe maxillary first molar movement during headgear treatment. The material consisted of dental casts taken bimonthly from 36 children whose Class II Division 1 malocclusion was treated with straight-pull headgear during a 24-month period. Control data were collected from initial and final models of 38 subjects with a similar malocclusion who were not treated during a 24-month observation period. Spatial data from each subject's initial model were oriented similarly in an anatomically derived coordinate system, and a best-fit superimposition of palatal rugae landmarks from subsequent models allowed the measurement of molar movement. On average, headgear treatment resulted in distal movement of the molars, and the fitted net difference between treated and control subjects was 3.00 mm (SE, 0.37 mm; P < .001). Also, the headgear caused significantly more molar extrusion (0.56 mm; SE, 0.20 mm; P < .006) and buccal expansion (0.58 mm; SE, 0.17 mm; P < .001) on average than in the control group. Poor reliability of the method for measuring molar rotations indicated that they could not be determined accurately. Longitudinal description of molar movement for each subject revealed great individual variability in the amount and pattern of tooth movement. Several reasons could account for the wide range of individual variation and warrant exploration.

Case-Control Studies↗