| 000 | 02932cam a2200349 a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | EG-GiCUC | ||
| 005 | 20250223032709.0 | ||
| 008 | 210228s2020 ua dho f m 000 0 eng d | ||
| 040 |
_aEG-GiCUC _beng _cEG-GiCUC |
||
| 041 | 0 | _aeng | |
| 049 | _aDeposite | ||
| 097 | _aM.Sc | ||
| 099 | _aCai01.09.06.M.Sc.2020.Ah.I | ||
| 100 | 0 | _aAhmed Khaled Afify | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aInfra-zygomatic mini implant supported appliance for distalization and intrusion of maxillary dentition compared to headgear in growing patients : _bA randomized clinical trial / _cAhmed Khaled Afify ; Supervised Amr Emad Eldakroury , Mostafa Mohamed Eldawlatly , Sherif Ali Elkordy |
| 246 | 1 | 5 |
_aجهاز يعتمد على زرعات صغيرة مثبتة فى العظم الوجنى السفلى لرفع الفك العلوى و سحبه للخلف فى المرضى اليافعين مقارنة بغطاء الرأس : _b تجربة سريرية عشوائية |
| 260 |
_aCairo : _bAhmed Khaled Afify , _c2020 |
||
| 300 |
_a153 P. : _bcharts , facimiles , photoghrphs ; _c25cm |
||
| 502 | _aThesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine- Department of Orthodontics | ||
| 520 | _aAim: To evaluate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effect of a new Infra-zygomatic Mini implant supported appliance and compare it with high pull headgear appliance in treatment of growing patients with class II malocclusion. Methodology: 22 growing boys aged between (10 to 12 years) with class II div 1 malocclusion randomly divided to 2 equal groups. The first group treated with high pull headgear with acrylic splint and the second one treated with a new Infra-zygomatic Mini implant supported appliance. The treatment duration was 8 months for both groups. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before and after the treatment for each patient to be analyzed. Results: The first molar distalization was 2.58 ± 2.31 mm in head gear group and 1.53 ± 2.83 mm in mini-implants group. SNA and A-S VRL changed by mean (-0.29 ± 1.12 and -1.45 ± 2.19) respectively in the head gear group and by mean (-0.90 ± 0.63 and -0.66 ± 1.44) respectively in the mini-implants group. There were no significant differences between the two groups except in U1-PP, Cen U1-S-VRL,Interincisal angle and Nasolabial angle. Conclusions: the mini-implant supported appliance can be used as the fixed replacement of the removable high pull headgear appliance with no need for patient cooperation | ||
| 530 | _aIssued also as CD | ||
| 653 | 4 | _aHeadgear appliance | |
| 653 | 4 | _aInfra-zygomatic mini implant supported appliance | |
| 653 | 4 | _aMaxillary dentition | |
| 700 | 0 |
_aAmr Emad Eldakroury , _eSupervisor |
|
| 700 | 0 |
_aMostafa Mohamed Eldawlatly , _eSupervisor |
|
| 700 | 0 |
_aSherif Ali Elkordy , _eSupervisor |
|
| 856 | _uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf | ||
| 905 |
_aNazla _eRevisor |
||
| 905 |
_aShimaa _eCataloger |
||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cTH |
||
| 999 |
_c80036 _d80036 |
||