Examples of using Pattern II in English and their translations into Portuguese
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
-
Official/political
On CT, areas with pattern II calcifications suggest the presence of osteoid matrix.
This study therefore revealed that 50% of patients were Pattern I, 41% Pattern II and 9% Pattern III.
Pattern II calcifications have been evidenced in all the osteogenic sarcomas and in one of the Ewing's sarcomas case 6.
CT-guided biopsy aimed at areas with pattern II calcifications could avoid this mistake.
The Pattern II is characterized by a positive sagittal discrepancy between maxilla and mandible, i.e., there is a maxillary excess, or a mandibular deficiency.
To address them, I think it is important to review certain concepts underlying the compensatory treatment of Pattern II malocclusions with mandibular deficiency.
For patients classified as malocclusion pattern ii with mandibular deficiency, the presence of sagittal compensation was frequent for superior and inferio.
The majority of calcifications near the bone were pattern I; andthe distant ones were pattern II. Pattern III calcifications have not been found.
Among these, eight presented DFD pattern II and 13 pattern III, who were submitted to Le Fort I osteotomy, sagittal/vertical ramus and chin surgery.
These values, which correlate with cephalometric values Wits, suggest that the presence of a Pattern II maxillomandibular relationship is therefore expected and acceptable.
All Pattern II women and all Pattern III men were considered aesthetically acceptable, showing that a reduction in the facial convexity of women, and an increase in men's are aesthetically acceptable.
I do not believe that the compensatory treatment of pattern II and pattern III malocclusions play out quite the same way during the final stage of growth.
Therefore, to give a straightforwardanswer to your question, any torque pre-built into a bracket can make a difference in the treatment of Pattern II malocclusion with mandibular deficiency.
Therefore, in the hypothesis of the biopsy does not reach areas with pattern II calcifications, there is a possibility of the osteoid tissue- existing only in these areas- not being included in the biopsy slide.
This retrospective study investigated the facial impact produced by herbst continuum mandibular advancement device associated with orthodontic appliance straight-wire in patients with class ii malocclusion, pattern ii, mandibular deficiency.
To summarize and focus on the foundation of my answer,it seems that treatment of Pattern II malocclusions with mandibular deficiency is, in fact, compensatory and involves moving the lower arch forward, with inclination of the incisors.
Thirty-six individuals participated in the study, aged between 18 and 40 years mean=27.22, distributed into three groups according to the Facial Pattern classification:Pattern I n=12, Pattern II n=12, and Pattern III n=12, being seven female and five male participants in each group.
For pattern II malocclusions the clinical consensus that finds support in the literature is that, when caused by maxillary protrusion, they must be treated in mixed dentition, and when caused by mandibular deficiency, they should be treated in permanent dentition, preferably during pubertal growth spurt.
Calcifications in soft parts were evaluated every time CT was available for analysis; pattern I calcifications were found in all of the cases Ewing's sarcoma, osteosarcoma,chondrosarcoma; pattern II, in osteosarcomas and in one Ewing's sarcoma case 6.
A published study showed, however,that Pattern III individuals in this sample exhibited more striking discrepancies in their profile than those with Pattern II, when compared with Pattern I individuals. This may be one of the reasons why Pattern III individuals received lower scores than Pattern II. .
This explains why I think it is preposterous, from a logical and biological standpoint,to restrain the buccal tipping movement of mandibular incisors when mandibular advancement is performed in the compensatory treatment of Pattern II malocclusions. There is no support in the literature for any other thesis.
The most simplistic explanation for this finding corroborates several authors who found that, from a strictly aesthetical viewpoint, balanced profiles are the most widely preferred,followed by Pattern II profiles, whereas Pattern III profiles were considered the least aesthetic. The literature also suggests that Pattern III individuals are more likely to accept orthognathic surgery than Patterns II patients due to the impact of this discrepancy on facial aesthetics.
In distributing aesthetically pleasing,acceptable and unpleasant individuals among Patterns I, II and III, it was noted that all subjects in the sample who were classified as having an aesthetically pleasing pattern belonged to Pattern I. Moreover, 85.4% of Pattern II individuals were rated as aesthetically acceptable, and 14.6% as aesthetically unpleasant, all of whom were men.
The swallowing process was adapted, and the tongue came forward and was pressured on the teeth, with associated head movement,especially in Pattern II; in Pattern III, orbicular, mentalis, and perioral muscles were more frequently contracted, followed by the forward tongue posture, corroborating other studies.
To complete my answer to your question, I hope I made it perfectly clear that although these steps are taken in terms of retention, the actions that really matter in minimizing the negative effects of growth after treatment are related to the age at which treatment is performed this is even more important for Pattern III, the quality of occlusal relations and of the functional pattern allowed to these patients,especially those of Pattern II.
B From this perspective, the conclusion-also found in the literature-, for all appliances used for the treatment of Pattern II malocclusions with mandibular deficiency, is that the lower teeth are moved forward incisors are buccally tipped.
Group I CG consisted of 14 young adults with dentofacial balance with Class I andPattern I. Group II DFD II consisted of 12 individuals with dentofacial deformity classified as Class II and Pattern II. Group III DFDIII consisted of 14 individuals with dentofacial deformity classified as Class III and Pattern III.
Treatment with these goals has long been made, and with good results. There is positive evidence in the literature,including for the long term, especially for pattern II malocclusions with mandibular deficiency, which are the most frequent malocclusions and are almost always treated compensatorily.
The individuals were divided into three groups balanced by gender and age: CG 14 individuals with dentofacial balance, Class I and Pattern I; DFD II 12 individuals with DFD,Class II and Pattern II and DFD III 14 individuals, Class III and Pattern III; the last two groups were undergoing preparatory orthodontic treatment for orthognathic surgery.
Patterns II and III individuals showed this angle to be, respectively, increased and decreased in relation to the same angle in Pattern I individuals.