Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Int. j. odontostomatol. (Print) ; 14(1): 136-146, mar. 2020. tab, graf
Article in Spanish | LILACS | ID: biblio-1056513

ABSTRACT

RESUMEN: En ortodoncia, las miniplacas se utilizan como dispositivo de anclaje temporal (TAD) para la realización de movimientos dentales que permiten el uso de fuerzas ortopédicas en ellos. En comparación con los mini tornillos, las miniplacas tienen la ventaja de una tasa de falla muy baja, pero la desventaja es que para la extracción se necesita el mismo acto quirúrgico que se realizó para la instalación. El objetivo de este estudio es realizar una revisión bibliográfica de las indicaciones de miniplacas en pacientes con mordidas abiertas, clase II y anomalías de clase III, y buscar cómo las miniplacas han mejorado los tratamientos de ortodoncia. La información principal se reunió buscando en PubMed con las palabras clave enumeradas a continuación. Afirmamos que las miniplacas están indicadas para la retracción en masa de la arcada, donde se observó que la fuerza de 150 g aplicada en los molares superiores es suficiente no solo para empujar los molares hacia atrás en una clase I corregida, sino también para iniciar la retracción de premolares, caninos e incisivos. En pacientes con mordida abierta, las miniplacas se definen como un método seguro, una alternativa rápida y menos costosa a la cirugía ortognática. Y en pacientes de las clases II y III se utilizan sin producir efectos dentoalveolares que sustituyan a los dispositivos extraorales como máscaras, con dispositivos intraorales y elásticos (BAMP).


ABSTRACT: In orthodontics, miniplates are used as a Temporary Anchoring Device (TAD) for the purpose dental movements, allowing the use of orthopedic forces. In comparison with mini-screws, miniplates have the advantage of a very low rate of failure. Nonetheless, their removal requires the same surgical procedure as during installation, which is an obvious disadvantage. The aim of this study is to review the indications of miniplates in patients with open bite, class II and class III anomalies, and review how miniplates improved orthodontics treatments. Information was obtained by a search in PubMed with the keywords listed below. Miniplates are indicated for retraction in mass of the arcade, where it was seen that the force of 150 g applied on maxillary molars, is sufficient not only to push the molars back into a corrected class I, but also to initiate retraction of premolars, canines, and incisors. In open-bite patients, mini plates, are achieved as a safe method, that is quick and a less expensive alternative to orthognathic surgery. Further, in class II and III patients they are used without producing dentoalveolar effects replacing extraoral devices as facemasks, with intraoral devices and elastics. (BAMP).


Subject(s)
Humans , Tooth Movement Techniques/instrumentation , Bone Screws/adverse effects , Dental Implants , Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures/instrumentation , Malocclusion, Angle Class II/surgery , Malocclusion, Angle Class III/surgery , Bone Plates , Cephalometry , Suture Techniques , Suture Anchors , Alveolar Process/surgery , Gingival Retraction Techniques , Molar
2.
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology ; : 506-509, 2016.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-123006

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite the benefits of continuous peripheral nerve blocks, catheter dislodgment remains a major problem, especially in the ambulatory setting. However, catheter dressing techniques to prevent such dislodgment have not been studied rigorously. We designed this simulation study to test the strength of two commercially available catheter dressings. METHODS: Using a cadaver model, we randomly assigned 20 trials to one of two dressing techniques applied to the lateral thigh: 1) clear adhesive dressing alone, or 2) clear adhesive dressing with an anchoring device. Using a digital luggage scale attached to a loop secured by the dressing, the same investigator applied steadily increasing force with a downward trajectory towards the floor until the dressing was removed or otherwise disrupted. RESULTS: The weight, measured (median [10th–90th percentile]) at the time of dressing disruption or removal, was 1.5 kg (1.3–1.8 kg) with no anchoring device versus 4.9 kg (3.7–6.5 kg) when the dressing included an anchoring device (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this simulation study, using an anchoring device may help prevent perineural catheter dislodgement and therefore premature disruption of continuous nerve block analgesia.


Subject(s)
Humans , Adhesives , Analgesia , Anesthesia, Conduction , Bandages , Cadaver , Catheters , Nerve Block , Peripheral Nerves , Research Personnel , Thigh
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL