-
Superimposition ABO sample test Case #3 Q3
I would really love an explanation reviewing the abo case 3 question 3. I can’t figure out how they arrived that minimal AP movement in lower molar was not due to a treatment effect.
-
3 Replies
-
Anish, thanks for launching discussion on this case!
There are a couple tips on how I look at vertical / AP dental changes. For the vertical (and you’ll see this on other posts discussion Buschang’s article), I use the traced CEJ as a guide. I find that helps me eyeball the difference.
For the AP dental changes on the molar, I eyeball the mesial contact point.
My goal in each of this is to narrow down the X or Y axis what is happening. Because of course teeth move in three dimensions and tip etc.
I’ve taken a screen shot below and marked a couple of lines. We also know 34 months – okay roughly 3 years of treatment.
3 yrs x 0.5mm/yr = 1.5mm AVERAGE mesial molar movement
A mandibular first molar is about 10.5mm wide mesiodistally so eyeing it that looks pretty close to me.
Does that make sense? [For me I have to keep it simple to break down the AP and Vertical because I totally agree that without breaking it down it appears it did not move much]
-
Breaking it down like that is so helpful. What do you do for the other teeth especially incisors?
For molars the vertical you said is 7.5mm so we do the percentage trick. For A-P mand molar is 10.5 can we assume same for max molar?
What about the incisors. the incisors get me especially with the proclination.
THANK YOU
-
The height of a central incisor is about 9-10mm traced. For the AP just look at the same distance – The traced incisors seem about 2mm thick to me.
Look at each one for practice and keep it up!
-
-
The forum ‘Synapse Orthodontics: Module 2’ is closed to new discussions and replies.