scholarly journals Three-dimensional condylar changes from Herbst appliance and multibracket treatment: A comparison with matched Class II elastics

2020 ◽  
Vol 158 (4) ◽  
pp. 505-517.e6
Author(s):  
Robert Y. Wei ◽  
Arjun Atresh ◽  
Antonio Ruellas ◽  
Lucia H.S. Cevidanes ◽  
Tung Nguyen ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Liu ◽  
Xun Xi ◽  
Dongxu Liu

Abstract Backgroud: The apllication of Class II elastic can induce the rotation of mandible and condylar response. The purpose of this study was to assess the positional and morphological alterations of mandible after orthodontic treatment with Class II elastic by using of 3-dimensional superimposition of pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2) and after retention (T3) CBCT data. Methods: With sequential 3D superimpositions that combined cranial base superimpositions with regional mandibular superimpositions, the virtual reference mandibles were placed to distinguish morphological changes from positional changes. The morphological changes and positional changes of mandibles were measured by comparing multiple combinations of reference and original mandibles respectively, and the corresponding paired t test was performed using SPSS (IBM SPSS version 23). Results: During orthodontic treatment (T1-T2), the mandibular molars were extruded, and the condyles were revealed apparent adaptive remodeling and upward/backward displacements. The mandible rotated backwardly and drifted backwardly/downwardly. The condylar growth and displacements were significantly different. The condylar growth did not induce isometric displacements and the forward rotation was restricted. Two years after retention (T2-T3), continuous morphological and positional changes occurred. The condylar remodeling and forward/downward displacements induced forward mandibular rotation and neutralized the backward rotation during treatment period (T1-T2). The overall positional changes (T1-T3) were translations with slight rotation. Statistically significant differences were found between the treatment and overall variables regarding the 3D rotation, condylar displacement, Pog displacement. And with the continuous morphological and positional changes, the condyle moved back to the initial position after the retention stage.Conclusion: Conclusions: the sequential 3D superimposition method can produce the reference mandibles and distinguish the morphological changes from positional alterations. The class II elastics induced mandibular complex changes including condylar adaptive remodeling and 3D rotation and translation. The condyles morphologically adapted to resist the rotation effects of Class II elastic.


2018 ◽  
Vol 154 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-248.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arjun Atresh ◽  
Lucia H.S. Cevidanes ◽  
Marilia Yatabe ◽  
Luciana Muniz ◽  
Tung Nguyen ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 157 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Moreira Oliveira ◽  
Paula Loureiro Cheib-Vilefort ◽  
Henrique de Pársia Gontijo ◽  
Camilo Aquino Melgaço ◽  
Lorenzo Franchi ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 144 (6) ◽  
pp. 818-830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan LeCornu ◽  
Lucia H.S. Cevidanes ◽  
Hongtu Zhu ◽  
Chih-Da Wu ◽  
Brent Larson ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Maria Rita Giuca ◽  
Marco Pasini ◽  
Sara Drago ◽  
Leonardo Del Corso ◽  
Arianna Vanni ◽  
...  

Introduction. The Herbst device is widely used for correction of class II malocclusions; however, most of the researches carried out on the Herbst appliance in literature do not take into account patients with a different mandibular divergence. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of Herbst on dental and skeletal structures and to evaluate possible influence of vertical facial growth patterns. Methods. A retrospective study was conducted on lateral cephalograms of 75 growing patients (mean age: 9.9 ± 1.9 years) with class II malocclusion treated with Herbst. Subjects were divided into 3 groups using the mandibular divergence index (SN and GoMe angle). Cephalometric parameters were evaluated using the modified SO (sagittal occlusion) Pancherz’s analysis. A statistical analysis was conducted to evaluate differences among groups using ANOVA. Results. Our study showed differences in response to treatment depending on patient’s facial vertical growth pattern. Cranial base angle and mandibular rotation were significantly different (p<0.05) between hypodivergent patients and normodivergent patients and between hypodivergent and hyperdivergent subjects. Conclusion. Hypodivergent patients increased their mandibular divergence during treatment to a greater extent than normodivergents; moreover, hyperdivergent patients exhibited a decreased mandibular divergence at the end of the treatment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document