2010 RWISO Journal - Roth Williams International Society of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Measurements Table 1 MI-CR Discrepancy Assessment of Control and Positioner Groups. Mean (mm) Control Positioner (n=8) (n=26) Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 SD (mm) Mean (mm) SD (mm) Mean (mm) SD (mm) Table 2 Independent t-test for MI-CR Discrepancies of Control Versus Positioner Group. Mean (mm) Right AP 0.700 0.499 1.225 1.383 1.306 0.897 0.733 Right vertical 0.863 0.407 1.238 0.845 1.217 0.969 0.623 Left AP 0.750 0.864 1.625 1.201 0.867 1.010 0.671 Left vertical 0.825 0.292 1.062 0.686 1.162 0.794 0.669 Transverse 0.350 0.267 0.288 0.309 1.031 1.106 0.248 As the table shows, pretreatment means for the control group were all within the clinical envelope of ± 1.0 mm for the A-P and vertical dimensions, and ± 0.5 mm for the transverse. Conversely, 4 out of 5 pretreatment means for the positioner group were outside this envelope; only the mean left A-P measurement, at 0.87, was within the clinical envelope. The control and positioner groups were then assessed by an independent t-test for any statistically significant pretreatment differences. As shown in Table 2, no differences were found between the two groups (0.08 of 0.05 was reduced by a factor of 5 (for the 5 variable CPI readings: right A-P, right vertical, left A-P, left vertical, and transverse) to control experimentwide alpha and to avoid the risk of type I errors. Thus a significance level of α = 0.01 was used for each test of the condylar axis position measurements. The results indicated statistically significant differences between time 1 and time 2 for the positioner group in the right A-P (Δ = 0.57 mm, t = 3.03, p = .006); right vertical (Δ = 0.59 mm, t = 2.79, p = .009); left vertical (Δ = 0.49 mm, t = 3.05, p = .005); and transverse (Δ = 0.78 mm, t = 3.49, p = .002) measurements. There was no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of condylar distraction in the left condyle in the A-P direction (Δ = 0.20 mm, t = 0.92, N.S.). Mixed-design analyses of variance compared the positioner and control groups’ change in MI-CR discrepancy over time (Table 4). Table 4 Mixed Design Analysis of Variance for MI-CR Discrepancies from time 1 to time 2 between Control Versus Positioner Group. Using the adjusted significance level described above (α = 0.01), these comparisons between the 2 groups showed no statistically significant differences in any of the 5 CPI measurements. However, 4 of the 5 dimensions fell below Effect F* p Right AP Time 0.012 .915 Time x group 6.096 .019 Right vertical Time 0.266 .609 Time x group 5.203 .029 Left AP Time 2.431 .129 Time x group 6.053 .019 Left vertical Time 0.599 .445. Time x group 4.917 034 Transverse Time 4.102 .051 * df for all tests are 1, 32. Time x group 2.978 .094 the traditional α = 0.05 level. Graphical representations of the change in MI-CR discrepancy over time for the positioner and control groups are shown in Figures 6 through 10. Figure 6 Right horizontal MI/CR discrepancy. Figure 7 Right vertical MI/CR discrepancy. RWISO Journal | September 2010 79
Page 1 and 2:
Contents Volume 2, No. 1, September
Page 3 and 4:
Letter from the President Samuel B.
Page 5 and 6:
News from the Roth Williams Teachin
Page 7 and 8:
In addition, three 8-hour courses w
Page 9 and 10:
Drs. Edson Illipronti and Solange F
Page 11 and 12:
The Transverse Dimension: Diagnosis
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 4 Patient with gingival rece
Page 15 and 16:
idge determines the width of the ma
Page 17 and 18:
Figure 16 MPV of a cone-beam CT sca
Page 19 and 20:
8. Vanarsdall RL. Transverse dimens
Page 21 and 22:
Hinge Axis: The Need for Accuracy i
Page 23 and 24:
to the flag table (Figure 25). The
Page 25 and 26:
The Axi-Path is designed so that th
Page 27 and 28: Figure 43 Nasion relator moves tran
Page 29 and 30: The distance between the preauricul
Page 31 and 32: Figure 63 Flag table. Figure 64 Fla
Page 33 and 34: Figure 72 Figure 73 Supposition: Th
Page 35 and 36: Figure 83 The distance between the
Page 37 and 38: Condylar Resorption, Matrix Metallo
Page 39 and 40: Figure 4-c The extracellular activi
Page 41 and 42: shows promise in curbing the bone l
Page 43 and 44: 29. Zardeneta G, Milam SB, Lee T, S
Page 45 and 46: Comparison of Maxillary Cast Positi
Page 47 and 48: points. They found that the mean di
Page 49 and 50: Figure 2-a, b True-hinge facebow. F
Page 51 and 52: to adjust for experimentwide error
Page 53 and 54: pending upon the direction in which
Page 55 and 56: 28. Goska JR, Christensen LV. Compa
Page 57 and 58: The Effect of Tooth Wear on Postort
Page 59 and 60: Figure 4 Slight attrition occurred
Page 61 and 62: improved, with retraction of the up
Page 63 and 64: Figure 9-e Left lateral intraoral p
Page 65 and 66: All available intraoral photographs
Page 67 and 68: Figure 21 Mandibular movement after
Page 69 and 70: Physiologic Treatment Goals in Orth
Page 71 and 72: REFERENCES 1. Dawson PE. The Concep
Page 73 and 74: 70. McNamara JA Jr. The independent
Page 75 and 76: Effect of Gnathologic Positioner We
Page 77: sure was first checked in the mount
Page 81 and 82: the .05 level of significance in th
Page 83 and 84: RWISO Journal | September 2010 83
show all

2010 RWISO Journal - Roth Williams International Society of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?