scholarly journals THE TREATMENT EFFECTS OF THE COMBINED APPROACH: BRACESWITH PREFABRICATED MYOFUNCTIONALAPPLIANCE FOR GROWING CLASS II PATIENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 421-430
Author(s):  
Popova Y ◽  
◽  
Dinkova M ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Permanent Dentition ◽  
Cephalometric Analysis ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Skeletal Changes ◽  
Final Profile

Objective:To evaluate the effect of combined treatment approach: braces with myofunctional appliance (trainer-T4B) on dentoalveolar, sagittal and vertical skeletal level in growing individuals with Skeletal and Dental Class II. Methods:Twenty teenagers with permanent dentition were treated with fixed appliance-braces in combination with myofunctional appliance (trainer-T4B). All patient completed thetreatment with occlusal Class I molar relationship. The patients made initial and final profile X-rays with cephalometric analysis. The evaluation of the treatment effects was made by comparing the initial and the final cephalometric analysis. Results:Significant sagittal skeletal changes were observed on all sagittal skeletal parameters, except for SNA°. A high positive association was found between the ANB angle change and Wits change. The changes in the rest of the vertical skeletal measurements were significant for two, including SN-M° and Go°. The dentoalveolar measurements showedsignificant changes in all parameters, except for i/M° where the change was marginally significant. Conclusion:The chosen treatment approachwaseffective for growing skeletal and dental Class II patients with permanent dentition.

scholarly journals Comparison of the effects of rapid maxillary expansion versus Twin Block appliance on mandibular growth in skeletal Class II patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jia-Nan Zhang ◽  
Si Chen ◽  
Cheng-Yi Huang ◽  
Chong Zhong ◽  
Jing Jin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Rapid Maxillary Expansion ◽  
Maxillary Expansion ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Mandibular Growth ◽  
Twin Block ◽  
Skeletal Class ◽  
Skeletal Changes ◽  
Skeletal Class Ii ◽  
Growth Changes

Abstract Background This is a retrospective study that compares mandibular growth changes in skeletal Class II patients treated by rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and following fixed appliance with those patients treated by Twin-Block (TB) and following fixed appliance. Methods Fourteen patients treated by RME and following fixed appliance were included into the RME group. Fifteen patients treated by Twin-Block and following fixed appliance were included into the TB group. Lateral cephalometric radiographs taken before treatment and immediately after fixed appliance treatment were used to evaluate mandibular growth effects. Results The starting forms of the patients in the two groups were examined to be of good comparability. The mandibular length increased significantly in both groups as measured by Co-Gn, Go-Gn and Ar-Gn, but the TB group didn’t show more mandibular growth than the RME group (P > 0.05). Skeletal changes of the mandible in vertical dimension were different in the two groups. The change in FMA was 0.35° in the RME group, while the change was 2.65° in the TB group (P < 0.001). The change in LAFH was 5.14 mm in the RME group, significantly smaller than the change of 10.19 mm in the TB group (P < 0.001). Conclusion The investigated Phase I treatment with RME followed by Phase II treatment of fixed appliance achieved the same increases in sagittal mandibular growth and facial profile improvements as the Twin-Block therapy. The treatment with RME followed by fixed appliance was better for vertical control, while the treatment with Twin-Block followed by fixed appliance significantly increased the mandibular plane angle.

scholarly journals Long-term evaluation of the molar movements following Pendulum and fixed appliances

2012 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Caprioglio ◽  
Mattia Fontana ◽  
Elena Longoni ◽  
Mauro Cozzani
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Individual Growth ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Skeletal Changes ◽  
Growth Increase ◽  
Lateral Cephalograms ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Term Evaluation ◽  
Long Term Observation

ABSTRACT Objective: To describe the molar movements and skeletal changes associated with Pendulum-fixed appliance treatment and the long-term postretention period. Subjects and Methods: The treatment sample consisted of 76 Class II patients, 35 males and 41 females. Lateral cephalograms were obtained at the start of treatment (T1); the end of distalization (T2); the end of orthodontic fixed appliance therapy (T3); and long-term observation (7 years 2 months later; T4). Mean age was 12 years 11 months at T1, 13 years 8 months at T2, 15 years 4 months at T3, and 22 years 5 months at T4. The average amount of Class II molar relationship was 3.1 mm, with a mean overjet of 5.9 mm at the beginning of treatment. A paired t-test was used to identify significant between-group differences between T2–T4 and T3–T4. Results: Distal molar movement was obtained during the distalization phase (T2), and more than half of the distalizing effect was maintained at the end of maxillary growth (T4). Most of the relapse occurred during fixed appliance therapy (T3), whereas no significant change was detected in the postretention period (T4). The molar relationship did not show any significant difference between T2 and T4. The vertical facial dimension increased during the distalization phase (T2) and fixed appliance therapy (T3) but returned to the initial values during the postretention period (T4). Conclusions: The Pendulum appliance induces significant dentoalveolar effects, which can be partially maintained during the long-term period. The Class I molar relationship does not change during completion of individual growth. Increase in vertical facial dimension represents a temporary effect.

scholarly journals Treatment effects of the Carriere® Motion 3D™ appliance for the correction of Class II malocclusion in adolescents

2019 ◽  
Vol 89 (6) ◽  
pp. 839-846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hera Kim-Berman ◽  
James A. McNamara ◽  
Joel P. Lints ◽  
Craig McMullen ◽  
Lorenzo Franchi
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Occlusal Plane ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Forward Movement ◽  
Skeletal Changes ◽  
Fixed Appliances

ABSTRACT Objectives: To determine the treatment effects produced in Class II patients by the Carriere® Motion 3D™ appliance (CMA) followed by full fixed appliances (FFA). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study evaluated 34 adolescents at three time points: T1 (pretreatment), T2 (removal of CMA), and T3 (posttreatment). The comparison group comprised 22 untreated Class II subjects analyzed at T1 and T3. Serial cephalograms were traced and digitized, and 12 skeletal and 6 dentoalveolar measures were compared. Results: Phase I with CMA lasted 5.2 ± 2.8 months; phase II with FFA lasted 13.0 ± 4.2 months. CMA treatment restricted the forward movement of the maxilla at point A. There was minimal effect on the sagittal position of the chin at pogonion. The Wits appraisal improved toward Class I by 2.1 mm during the CMA phase but not during FFA. Lower anterior facial height increased twice as much in the treatment group as in controls. A clockwise rotation (3.9°) of the functional occlusal plane in the treatment group occurred during phase I; a substantial rebound (−3.6°) occurred during phase II. Overjet and overbite improved during treatment, as did molar relationship; the lower incisors proclined (4.2°). Conclusions: The CMA appliance is an efficient and effective way of correcting Class II malocclusion. The changes were mainly dentoalveolar in nature, but some skeletal changes also occurred, particularly in the sagittal position of the maxilla and in the vertical dimension.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Effects of Rapid Maxillary Expansion vs Twin Block Appliance on Mandibular Growth in Skeletal Class II Patients.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jia-Nan Zhang ◽  
Si Chen ◽  
Cheng-Yi Huang ◽  
Chong Zhong ◽  
Jing Jin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Rapid Maxillary Expansion ◽  
Maxillary Expansion ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Mandibular Growth ◽  
Twin Block ◽  
Skeletal Class ◽  
Skeletal Changes ◽  
Skeletal Class Ii ◽  
Growth Changes

Abstract Background: This is a retrospective study that compares mandibular growth changes in skeletal Class II patients treated by rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and following fixed appliance with those patients treated by Twin-Block (TB) and following fixed appliance. Methods: Fourteen patients treated by RME and following fixed appliance were included into the RME group. Fifteen patients treated by Twin-Block and following fixed appliance were included into the TB group. Lateral cephalometric radiographs taken before treatment and immediately after fixed appliance treatment were used to evaluate mandibular growth effects. Results: The starting forms of the patients in the two groups were examined to be of good comparability. The mandibular length increased significantly in both groups as measured by Co-Gn, Go-Gn and Ar-Gn, but the TB group didn’t show more mandibular growth than the RME group (P>0.05). Skeletal changes of the mandible in vertical dimension were different in the two groups. The change in FMA was 0.35° in the RME group, while the change was 2.65° in the TB group (P<0.001). The change in LAFH was 5.14mm in the RME group, significantly smaller than the change of 10.19mm in the TB group (P<0.001).Conclusions: The investigated Phase I treatment with RME followed by Phase II treatment of fixed appliance achieved the same increases in sagittal mandibular growth and facial profile improvements as the Twin-Block therapy. The treatment with RME followed by fixed appliance was better for vertical control, while the treatment with Twin-Block followed by fixed appliance significantly increased the mandibular plane angle.

Non-extraction and multiloop edgewise technique versus orthognathic surgery and fixed appliance in adult class II patients: a cephalometric comparative study

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Migliorati ◽  
Sara Drago ◽  
Irene Schiavetti ◽  
Guglielmo Ramieri ◽  
Giovanni Gerbino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Orthognathic Surgery ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Fixed Appliance

scholarly journals Dental and skeletal changes in mild to moderate Class II malocclusions treated by either a Twin-block or Xbow appliance followed by full fixed orthodontic treatment

2015 ◽  
Vol 85 (6) ◽  
pp. 997-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sayeh Ehsani ◽  
Brian Nebbe ◽  
David Normando ◽  
Manuel O Lagravere ◽  
Carlos Flores-Mir
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Block Group ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Mandibular Incisor ◽  
Twin Block ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Skeletal Changes ◽  
Length Increase

ABSTRACT Objective:  To compare the short-term skeletal and dental effects of two-phase orthodontic treatment including either a Twin-block or an XBow appliance. Materials and Methods:  This was a retrospective clinical trial of 50 consecutive Class II cases treated in a private practice with either a Twin-block (25) or XBow (25) appliance followed by full fixed orthodontic treatment. To factor out growth, an untreated Class II control group (25) was considered. Results:  A MANOVA of treatment/observation changes followed by univariate pairwise comparisons showed that the maxilla moved forward less in the treatment groups than in the control group. As for mandibular changes, the corpus length increase was larger in the Twin-block group by 3.9 mm. Dentally, mesial movement of mandibular molars was greater in both treatment groups. Although no distalization of maxillary molars was found in either treatment group, restriction of mesial movement of these teeth was seen in both treatment groups. Both treatment groups demonstrated increased mandibular incisor proclination with larger increases for the XBow group by 3.3°. The Wits value was decreased by 1.6 mm more in the Twin-block group. No sex-related differences were observed. Conclusions:  Class II correction using an XBow or Twin-block followed by fixed appliances occurs through a relatively similar combination of dental and skeletal effects. An increase in mandibular incisor inclination for the XBow group and an increased corpus length for the Twin-block group were notable exceptions. No overall treatment length differences were seen.

scholarly journals Treatment timing of MARA and fixed appliance therapy of Class II malocclusion

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 394-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. T. Huanca Ghislanzoni ◽  
T. Baccetti ◽  
D. Toll ◽  
E. Defraia ◽  
J. A. McNamara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Treatment Timing

scholarly journals Dentoskeletal Effects and “Effective” Temporomandibular Joint, Maxilla and Chin Changes in Good and Bad Responders to van Beek Activator Treatment

2007 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Ruf ◽  
Margareta Bendeus ◽  
Hans Pancherz ◽  
Urban Hägg
Keyword(s):  
Temporomandibular Joint ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Good Responder ◽  
Skeletal Changes ◽  
Maxillary Molars ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Subject Material ◽  
Lateral Head ◽  
Lower Incisors

Abstract Objective: To assess possible differences in dentoskeletal effects and “effective” temporomandibular joint, maxilla, and chin changes between good and bad responders to van Beek activator treatment. Materials and Methods: The subject material consisted of 20 consecutive normodivergent male Class II division 1 patients treated with a van Beek activator. Because of insufficient cooperation, four patients were excluded. Lateral head films were taken 6 months before treatment, at start of treatment, and after 12 months of treatment. The patients were placed into a good responder group (successful, n = 8) and a bad responder group (unsuccessful, n = 8). An overjet reduction ≥4 mm was considered successful. Results: During the van Beek treatment period, the good responders showed a significantly larger improvement in overjet and molar relationship than did the bad responders. The good responders exhibited a significant posterior development of condylion, less anterior mandibular autorotation, retrusion of upper incisors, protrusion of lower incisors, distalization of maxillary molars, and a mesial movement of mandibular molars. No significant dental movements were seen in the bad responders. Conclusions: Although van Beek activator treatment affected the direction of condylar growth, as well as the direction of maxilla and chin changes, it can be concluded that skeletal changes did not contribute to the Class II correction. Instead, overjet reduction during van Beek activator treatment was found to be due to a favorable dental reaction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document