Semra Ciǧer - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Semra Ciǧer
The purpose of this study was to evaluate longitudinal arch width and form changes and to define ... more The purpose of this study was to evaluate longitudinal arch width and form changes and to define arch form types with a new computerized method. Maxillary and mandibular models of 21 Class II Division 1 patients were examined before treatment (T(0)), after treatment (T(1)), and an average of 3 years after retention (T(2)). Arch width measurements were made directly on scanned images of maxillary and mandibular models. Arch form changes at T(0)-T(1) and T(1)-T(2) were evaluated by superimposing the computer-generated Bezier arch curves with a computer program. Types of dental arch forms were defined by superimposing them with the pentamorphic arch system, which included 5 different types of arch forms: normal, ovoid, tapered, narrow ovoid, and narrow tapered. Maxillary arch widths were increased during orthodontic treatment. Mandibular posterior arch widths were also increased. The expansion of the mandibular arch forms was less than in the maxillary arch forms. Arch width changes were generally stable, except for reduction in maxillary and mandibular interlateral, inter-first premolar, and mandibular intercanine widths. Pretreatment maxillary arch forms were mostly tapered; mandibular arch forms were tapered and narrow tapered. In maxillary arch forms, 76% of the treatment changes were maintained. Mandibular arch form was maintained in 67% of the sample, both during treatment and after retention. In mandibular arches, 71% of orthodontically induced arch form changes were maintained.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2002
In cases of bimaxillary protrusion, extraction of 4 premolars and orthodontic treatment with retr... more In cases of bimaxillary protrusion, extraction of 4 premolars and orthodontic treatment with retraction of the anterior teeth is a widely used approach. However, there is controversy over whether the changes that occur in the anterior alveolar bone always follow the direction and quantity of tooth movement. Nineteen patients with dentoalveolar bimaxillary protrusion treated by extracting the 4 first premolars were evaluated with lateral cephalograms and computed tomography (CT). Cephalograms and CT scans were made before treatment and 3 months after retraction of the incisors. The measurements of the cephalograms showed that maxillary and mandibular incisors were retracted primarily by controlled tipping of the teeth. For all maxillary and mandibular incisors, we assessed the labial and the lingual alveolar plates at crest level (S1), midroot level (S2), and apical level (S3) for bone-thickness changes during retraction of the maxillary and mandibular anterior segments. In the mandibular arch, the labial bone maintained its original thickness, except the S1 measurements, which showed a significant decrease in bone thickness (P Ͻ .001). In the maxillary arch, the labial bone thickness remained unchanged. There were statistically significant decreases in lingual bone width in both arches after retracting the incisors. Some of the patients demonstrated bone dehiscence that was not visible macroscopically or cephalometrically. When tooth movement is limited, forcing the tooth against the cortical bone may cause adverse sequelae. This type of approach must be carefully monitored to avoid negative iatrogenic effects. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:15-26)
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2004
The purpose of this study was to evaluate longitudinal arch width and form changes and to define ... more The purpose of this study was to evaluate longitudinal arch width and form changes and to define arch form types with a new computerized method. Maxillary and mandibular models of 21 Class II Division 1 patients were examined before treatment (T(0)), after treatment (T(1)), and an average of 3 years after retention (T(2)). Arch width measurements were made directly on scanned images of maxillary and mandibular models. Arch form changes at T(0)-T(1) and T(1)-T(2) were evaluated by superimposing the computer-generated Bezier arch curves with a computer program. Types of dental arch forms were defined by superimposing them with the pentamorphic arch system, which included 5 different types of arch forms: normal, ovoid, tapered, narrow ovoid, and narrow tapered. Maxillary arch widths were increased during orthodontic treatment. Mandibular posterior arch widths were also increased. The expansion of the mandibular arch forms was less than in the maxillary arch forms. Arch width changes were generally stable, except for reduction in maxillary and mandibular interlateral, inter-first premolar, and mandibular intercanine widths. Pretreatment maxillary arch forms were mostly tapered; mandibular arch forms were tapered and narrow tapered. In maxillary arch forms, 76% of the treatment changes were maintained. Mandibular arch form was maintained in 67% of the sample, both during treatment and after retention. In mandibular arches, 71% of orthodontically induced arch form changes were maintained.
Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO, 1994
The purpose of this study was to evaluate longitudinal arch width and form changes and to define ... more The purpose of this study was to evaluate longitudinal arch width and form changes and to define arch form types with a new computerized method. Maxillary and mandibular models of 21 Class II Division 1 patients were examined before treatment (T(0)), after treatment (T(1)), and an average of 3 years after retention (T(2)). Arch width measurements were made directly on scanned images of maxillary and mandibular models. Arch form changes at T(0)-T(1) and T(1)-T(2) were evaluated by superimposing the computer-generated Bezier arch curves with a computer program. Types of dental arch forms were defined by superimposing them with the pentamorphic arch system, which included 5 different types of arch forms: normal, ovoid, tapered, narrow ovoid, and narrow tapered. Maxillary arch widths were increased during orthodontic treatment. Mandibular posterior arch widths were also increased. The expansion of the mandibular arch forms was less than in the maxillary arch forms. Arch width changes were generally stable, except for reduction in maxillary and mandibular interlateral, inter-first premolar, and mandibular intercanine widths. Pretreatment maxillary arch forms were mostly tapered; mandibular arch forms were tapered and narrow tapered. In maxillary arch forms, 76% of the treatment changes were maintained. Mandibular arch form was maintained in 67% of the sample, both during treatment and after retention. In mandibular arches, 71% of orthodontically induced arch form changes were maintained.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2002
In cases of bimaxillary protrusion, extraction of 4 premolars and orthodontic treatment with retr... more In cases of bimaxillary protrusion, extraction of 4 premolars and orthodontic treatment with retraction of the anterior teeth is a widely used approach. However, there is controversy over whether the changes that occur in the anterior alveolar bone always follow the direction and quantity of tooth movement. Nineteen patients with dentoalveolar bimaxillary protrusion treated by extracting the 4 first premolars were evaluated with lateral cephalograms and computed tomography (CT). Cephalograms and CT scans were made before treatment and 3 months after retraction of the incisors. The measurements of the cephalograms showed that maxillary and mandibular incisors were retracted primarily by controlled tipping of the teeth. For all maxillary and mandibular incisors, we assessed the labial and the lingual alveolar plates at crest level (S1), midroot level (S2), and apical level (S3) for bone-thickness changes during retraction of the maxillary and mandibular anterior segments. In the mandibular arch, the labial bone maintained its original thickness, except the S1 measurements, which showed a significant decrease in bone thickness (P Ͻ .001). In the maxillary arch, the labial bone thickness remained unchanged. There were statistically significant decreases in lingual bone width in both arches after retracting the incisors. Some of the patients demonstrated bone dehiscence that was not visible macroscopically or cephalometrically. When tooth movement is limited, forcing the tooth against the cortical bone may cause adverse sequelae. This type of approach must be carefully monitored to avoid negative iatrogenic effects. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:15-26)
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2004
The purpose of this study was to evaluate longitudinal arch width and form changes and to define ... more The purpose of this study was to evaluate longitudinal arch width and form changes and to define arch form types with a new computerized method. Maxillary and mandibular models of 21 Class II Division 1 patients were examined before treatment (T(0)), after treatment (T(1)), and an average of 3 years after retention (T(2)). Arch width measurements were made directly on scanned images of maxillary and mandibular models. Arch form changes at T(0)-T(1) and T(1)-T(2) were evaluated by superimposing the computer-generated Bezier arch curves with a computer program. Types of dental arch forms were defined by superimposing them with the pentamorphic arch system, which included 5 different types of arch forms: normal, ovoid, tapered, narrow ovoid, and narrow tapered. Maxillary arch widths were increased during orthodontic treatment. Mandibular posterior arch widths were also increased. The expansion of the mandibular arch forms was less than in the maxillary arch forms. Arch width changes were generally stable, except for reduction in maxillary and mandibular interlateral, inter-first premolar, and mandibular intercanine widths. Pretreatment maxillary arch forms were mostly tapered; mandibular arch forms were tapered and narrow tapered. In maxillary arch forms, 76% of the treatment changes were maintained. Mandibular arch form was maintained in 67% of the sample, both during treatment and after retention. In mandibular arches, 71% of orthodontically induced arch form changes were maintained.
Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO, 1994