Person:
YILMAZ, HANİFE NURAY

Profile Picture

Email Address

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

OrgUnit Logo
Organizational Unit

Job Title

Last Name

YILMAZ

First Name

HANİFE NURAY

Name

Filters

20222
Reset filters

Settings

Author: ÖNEM ÖZBİLEN, ELVAN × Subject: DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ, ORAL CERRAHİ VE TIP ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Does maxillary protraction with Alt-RAMEC protocol affect inferior sclera exposure? A controlled 3dMD study
    (2022-03-01) ÖNEM ÖZBİLEN, ELVAN; ACAR, YASEMİN BAHAR; YILMAZ, HANİFE NURAY; ACAR Y. B., YILMAZ H. N., ÖNEM ÖZBİLEN E.
    Objective: The purpose of this controlled retrospective study was to measure and evaluate the inferior sclera exposure changes using 3dMD stereophotogrammetric images in a prepubertal Class III patient sample that underwent maxillary protraction with alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions protocol followed by facemask. Methods: The study group included 15 prepubertal patients (mean age: 9.85 ± 1.44 years) with Class III malocclusion due to maxillary retrognathism. Nine weeks of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions protocol was followed prior to 7 months of face mask treatment and 3 months of retention with Bionator. Pretreatment (T0) and post-retention (T1) lateral cephalometric radiographs and 3dMD images were retrieved from clinical archive. The same records were used for a control group of 15 well-matched, untreated patients (mean age: 9.4 ± 0.79 years). The distance between the upper eyelid margin and the lower eyelid margin was recorded as the overall eye height (E), and the distance between inferior limbus and the lower eyelid margin was recorded as inferior sclera exposure (S). The S : E ratio in percentage was calculated. Sella-nasion-A point angle (SNA) was used as the skeletal variable. Results: SNA angle, right S : E, and left S : E changed significantly in both groups at T1-T0. The intergroup comparison was highly significant for SNA angle but was not significant for right and left S : E variables. Conclusion: The S : E ratio decreased significantly in both alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions/facemask and the control groups. However, the change in S : E ratio between groups was not significant.
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Soft tissue evaluation after maxillary protraction with RPE or with the ALT-RAMEC protocol A controlled 3D study
    (2022-09-01) ÖNEM ÖZBİLEN, ELVAN; YILMAZ, HANİFE NURAY; ÖNEM ÖZBİLEN E., Ari M. O. , YILMAZ H. N. , Biren S.
    Purpose To evaluate soft tissue changes following maxillary protraction with different expansion protocols using three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry. Methods Pretreatment (T0) and postprotraction (T1) stereophotogrammetry and lateral cephalometric images of skeletal class III patients were included in this retrospective study. In all, 32 patients were treated either with a combination of rapid palatal expansion and facemask (RPE/FM; n = 16; mean age: 9.94 +/- 0.68 years) or with alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction together with a facemask (Alt-RAMEC/FM; n = 16; mean age: 9.74 +/- 1.35 years). As a control group 16 untreated patients were recruited (mean age: 9.46 +/- 0.8 years). For superimpositioning of the 3D images taken at T0 and T1, the face was divided into defined regions and 3D and differences between the groups were evaluated using 3-matic software (Materialise Europe, Leuven, Belgium). Cephalometric analyses were also performed. Results While the increases in the cephalometric parameters SNA and ANB were significantly greater in the treatment groups, the value for SNB also increased in the control group (p < 0.05). The results of the stereophotogrammetry analyses demonstrated that the mean changes in the RPE/FM and in the Alt-RAMEC/FM groups were significantly different for the midface compared to the control group (0.33 +/- 0.26 mm, 0.3 +/- 0.31 mm, 0.1 +/- 0.18 mm). The maximum positive, negative, and mean changes were also significantly different between the treatment and control groups for the upper lip (p < 0.05). For the lower lip and the chin significant backward movements in the RPE/FM as well as in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group (-1.06 +/- 1.26 mm, -0.68 +/- 0.45 mm) were observed, while the control group (0.09 +/- 0.53 mm) presented changes in the opposite direction. Regarding soft tissue changes, no significant differences were found between the RPE/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups. Conclusion Both treatment protocols improved the soft tissue profile due to a forward movement of the midface and the upper lip, and a backward movement of the lower lip and chin, compared to the control group.