4.1 Article

Aging of the normal occlusion

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 196-203

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjy044

关键词

-

资金

  1. CAPES-'Coordination for the improvement of higher education personnel'
  2. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the qualitative occlusal changes in individuals with normal occlusion during a period of 47 years. Materials and methods The sample comprised dental models of 20 subjects with normal occlusion (8 males; 12 females) taken at 13.2 years (T1) and 60.9 years of age (T2). The occlusal features were evaluated with the objective grading system (OGS) and with the six keys to normal occlusion (SKNO). The subjects also answered a questionnaire on the aesthetic and occlusal self-perception at T2. Comparisons from T1 to T2 were performed with paired t- and McNemar tests (P less than 0.05). Results OGS analysis showed a significant improvement in the marginal ridge levelling and tooth buccolingual inclination. There was a significant deterioration of the antero-posterior occlusal relationship from T1 to T2. Subjects without tooth loss showed a dental alignment worsening between time points. The marginal ridges, buccolingual inclination, and interproximal contacts improved. The SKNO analysis showed a significant deterioration of the maxillary second molars buccolingual inclination and an improvement of the maxillary second molar angulation. All patients were satisfied with their smiles, and 60 per cent of the subjects had no complaints. Dental crowding caused dissatisfaction in 35 per cent of the sample Limitations A limitation of this study was the high prevalence of tooth loss in the sample from T1 to T2. Only 30 per cent of the subjects had no tooth loss in T2. Conclusions The aging process slightly deteriorates some occlusal features of individuals with normal occlusion. However, most individuals were satisfied with their aesthetics and occlusal comfort at the sixth decade of life.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据