Knösel, Michael

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","747"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","The Angle Orthodontist"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","754"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","79"],["dc.contributor.author","Knoesel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Klaus"],["dc.contributor.author","Gripp-Rudolph, Liliam"],["dc.contributor.author","Attin, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Attin, Rengin"],["dc.contributor.author","Sadat-Khonsari, Reza"],["dc.contributor.author","Kubein-Meesenburg, Dietmar"],["dc.contributor.author","Bauss, Oskar"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:27:55Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:27:55Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Objective: To test the null hypothesis that third-order measurements are not correlated to lingual incisor features seen on radiographs. Material and Methods: The lateral headfilms of 38 untreated, norm-occlusion subjects without incisor abrasions or restorations were used for third-order measurements of upper and lower central incisors and assessment of the inclination of four sites suitable for lingual bracket placement with reference to the occlusal plane perpendicular. Lingual sections were determined by the tangents at the incisal fossa (S1), at the transition plateau between incisal fossa and the cingulum (S2), by a constructed line reaching from the incisal tip to the cingulum (S3), and by a tangent at the cingulum convexity (S4). Third-order angles were also assessed on corresponding dental casts using an incisor inclination gauge. Regression analysis was performed using the third-order measurements of both methods as the dependent variables and the inclination of the lingual enamel sections (S1, S2, S3, S4) as the independent variables. Results: The null hypothesis was rejected. For the most common bracket application sites located on the lingual shovel (S1 and S2), third-order inclination changes of 0.4-0.7 degrees are expected for each degree of change in the inclination of the lingual surface. The impact of bracket placement errors on third-order angulation is similar between sections S1 and S2 and the cingulum convexity (S4). Section S3 proved to be least affected by interindividual variation. Conclusion: The third-order measurements are correlated to lingual incisor features. Accordingly, third-order changes resulting from variation in lingual bracket placement can be individually predicted from radiographic assessments. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79:747-754.)"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.2319/072308-385.1"],["dc.identifier.isi","000267712600019"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19537870"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/5790"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/16306"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","E H Angle Education Research Foundation, Inc"],["dc.relation.issn","0003-3219"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Changes in Incisor Third-Order Inclination Resulting from Vertical Variation in Lingual Bracket Placement"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","454"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","The Angle Orthodontist"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","461"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","79"],["dc.contributor.author","Knoesel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Klaus"],["dc.contributor.author","Attin, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Engelke, Wilfried G. H."],["dc.contributor.author","Kubein-Meesenburg, Dietmar"],["dc.contributor.author","Gripp-Rudolph, Liliam"],["dc.contributor.author","Attin, Rengin"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:30:05Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:30:05Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Objective: To evaluate the significance of crown-root angles (CRAs) by testing the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in deviations of third-order angles to axial inclination values between Angle Class II division 2 incisors and a neutral occlusion control sample. Materials and Methods: The study group comprised n(total) = 130 whites with either Angle Class II division 2 (n(1) = 62; group A) or neutral (n(2) = 68; control group B) occlusal relationships. Upper central incisor inclination (U1) was assessed with reference to the cephalometric lines NA and palatal plane (U1NA/deg, U1PP/deg). Craniofacial sagittal and vertical relations were classified using angles SNA, SNB, ANB, and NSL-PP. Third-order angles were derived from corresponding dental cast pairs using an incisor inclination gauge. Welch's two-sample t-tests (alpha-level:.05) were used to test the null hypothesis. Single linear regression was applied to determine third-order angle values as a function of axial inclination values (U1NA, U1PP) or sagittal craniofacial structures (ANB angle), separately for group A and B. Results: The discrepancy between axial inclination (U1NA, U1PP) and third-order angles is significantly different (P <.001) between groups A and B. Regression analysis revealed a simply moderate correlation between third-order measurements and axial inclinations or sagittal craniofacial structures. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. The results of this study warn against the use of identical third-order angles irrespective of diminished CRAs typical for Angle Class II division 2 subjects. Routine CRA assessment may be considered in orthodontic treatment planning of Angle Class II division 2 cases. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79:454-461.)"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.2319/042508-234"],["dc.identifier.isi","000266052200008"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19413389"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/5785"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/16807"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.relation.issn","0003-3219"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","On the Interaction between Incisor Crown-Root Morphology and Third-Order Angulation"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1036"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","The Angle Orthodontist"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1044"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","80"],["dc.contributor.author","Knosel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Mattysek, Simone"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Klaus"],["dc.contributor.author","Sadat-Khonsari, Reza"],["dc.contributor.author","Kubein-Meesenburg, Dietmar"],["dc.contributor.author","Bauss, Oskar"],["dc.contributor.author","Ziebolz, Dirk"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:37:13Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:37:13Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.description.abstract","Objective To evaluate impulse debonding compared to three conventional methods for bracket removal in relation to the damage caused to the enamel surface Materials and Methods Ninety-six osteotomed third molars were randomly assigned to two study groups (n = 48) for bracket bonding with either a composite adhesive system (CAS) or a glass-ionomeric cement (GIG) These two groups were then each randomly divided into four subgroups (n = 12) according to the method of debonding using (1) bracket removal pliers, (2) a side-cutter, (3) a lift-off debracketing instrument, or (4) an air pressure pulse device Following debonding and corresponding postprocessing with either a finishing bur (CAS) or ultrasound (GIG), the enamel surfaces were assessed for damage, adhesive residues, and the need for postprocessing using scanning electron microscopy and the Adhesive Remnant Index, and the surfaces were compared in terms of mode of removal and type of adhesive using Fisher's exact test (alpha = 5%) Results No significant differences were found between the two different types of adhesives (CAS GIG) in terms of the amount of damage to the enamel Portions of enamel damage were found for impulse debonding/0%

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","649"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","The Angle Orthodontist"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","655"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","80"],["dc.contributor.author","Knoesel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Mattysek, Simone"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Klaus"],["dc.contributor.author","Kubein-Meesenburg, Dietmar"],["dc.contributor.author","Sadat-Khonsari, Reza"],["dc.contributor.author","Ziebolz, Dirk"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:41:27Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:41:27Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.description.abstract","Aim: To test the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in the reusability of debonded brackets with regard to debonding technique and adhesive used. Method: Ninety-six osteotomed third molars were randomly assigned to two study groups (n = 48) for bonding of a 0.018-inch bracket (Ormesh, Ormco) with either a composite adhesive (MonoLok2; RMO) or a glass ionomer cement (GIC; Fuji Ortho LC;GC). Each of these two groups were then randomly divided into four subgroups (n = 12) according to the method of debonding using (1) bracket removal pliers (BRP; Dentaurum), (2) a side cutter (SC; Dentaurum), (3) a lift-off debracketing instrument (LODI; 3M-Unitek), or (4) an air pressure pulse device (Corona Flex; KaVo). The brackets were subsequently assessed visually for reusability and reworkability with 2x magnification and by pull testing with a 0.017- x 0.025-inch steel archwire. The proportions of reusable brackets were individually compared in terms of mode of removal and with regard to adhesives using the Fisher exact test (alpha = 5%). Results: The null hypothesis was rejected. Not taking into account the debonding method, brackets bonded with GIC were judged to a significant extent (81%; n = 39; P<.01) to be reworkable compared with those bonded with composite (56%; n = 27). All brackets in both adhesive groups removed with either the LODI or the Corona Flex were found to be reusable, whereas 79% (46%) of the brackets removed with the BRP (SC) were not. The proportion of reusable brackets differed significantly between modes of removal (P<.01). Conclusion: With regard to bracket reusability, the SC and the BRP cannot be recommended for debonding brackets, especially in combination with a composite adhesive. (Angle Orthod. 2010;80:649-655.)"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.2319/102809-605.1"],["dc.identifier.isi","000279218700007"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/6861"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/19472"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","E H Angle Education Research Foundation, Inc"],["dc.relation.issn","0003-3219"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Suitability of orthodontic brackets for rebonding and reworking following removal by air pressure pulses and conventional debracketing techniques"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]