The Efficacy of a New AMCOP® Elastodontic Protocol for Orthodontic Interceptive Treatment: A Case Series and Literature Overview

Background: Elastodontics is a specific interceptive orthodontic treatment that uses removable elastomeric appliances. They are functional appliances that produce neuromuscular, orthopedic and dental effects. Thus, these devices are useful in the developmental age, when skeletal structures are characterized by important plasticity and adaptation capacity, allowing to remove factors responsible for malocclusions. Elastomeric devices are generally well tolerated by patients requiring simple collaboration and management. This work can be useful to update all orthodontists already adopting these appliances or for those who want to approach them for the first time. This study aimed to describe four cases treated with new elastomeric devices called AMCOP Bio-Activators and to provide an overview of elastodontics, its evolution, indications and limits. Methods: A total of four clinical cases were presented after a treatment period of 16–20 months to evaluate the clinical and radiological effects of the elastodontic therapy. Results: The effectiveness of Bio-Activators on clinical cases was evidenced with a significant improvement in skeletal and dentoalveolar relationship, and malocclusion correction in a limited treatment period (16–20 months). Conclusions: The Bio-Activators showed clinical effectiveness to achieve therapeutic targets according to a low impact on the patient’s compliance.

Clear Aligners in Patients with Amelogenesis and Dentinogenesis Imperfecta

Dentinogenesis imperfecta (DI) and amelogenesis imperfecta (AI) are hereditary abnormalities of dental hard tissues. Dental abnormalities may also be accompanied by symptoms of disorders such as osteogenesis imperfecta. AI and DI have a significant burden on socializing, function, and comfort; therefore, frequent screening and accurate diagnosis is the cornerstone of managing such conditions. Both AI and DI could be treated with many strategies, including restorative, prosthetic, periodontal, surgical, and orthodontics treatment. The interdisciplinary combination of orthodontic, prosthodontic, and periodontic treatment has been proven to improve the prognosis of AI and DI. Regarding orthodontic treatment, the most difficult element of orthodontic therapy may be maintaining a high level of motivation for what might be a prolonged form of treatment spanning several years. There are many forms of orthodontic management for AI and DI, including removable appliances, functional appliances, and fixed appliances. Clear aligner therapy (CAT) contains a broad range of equipment that works in different ways, has different construction processes, and is compatible with different malocclusion procedures. The application of CAT in patients with AI and DI is favorable over the fixed applicants. However, the available evidence regarding the application of CAT in AI is weak and heterogeneous. In this review, we discussed the current evidence regarding the application of clear CAT in patients with AI and DI.

Comparative Analysis of Dentoskeletal Changes of the Twin Block Appliance and the AdvanSync2 Appliance in Treatment of Skeletal Class-II Malocclusion in Pakistani Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective This study aimed to compare dentoskeletal changes in skeletal class-II malocclusion with removable twin block appliance and fixed AdvanSync2 appliance. Materials and Methods A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted over a span of 1 year at AFID at Rawalpindi. Thirty patients with skeletal class-II malocclusion, 16 males (53.3%) and 14 females (46.6%), were randomly selected and divided in two equal groups (15 each) to be treated with either fixed functional appliances (FFAs) or with removable functional appliances (RFAs). Out of 30 patients, 15 between cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) stages of 2 and 3 were treated with RFA (twin block appliances) and remaining 15 between CVM stages of 4 and 5 were treated with FFA (AdvanSync2 appliances). Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2), angular variable, and linear variable were measured to compare the dentoskeletal effects between the two groups. Statitical Analysis Paired sample t-test was used to assess significant difference between variables at T1 (Pre-treatment) and T2 (Post-treatment) stage for both RFA and FFA group. Comparison among the RFA and FFA group was made using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U Test. IBM SPSS version 25.0 was used for evaluation. Results No significant difference was found in angular variables between the RFA and FFA groups (p > 0.05) with the exception of linear variables. Sella-posterior nasal spine (S-PNS) length significantly increased and Jarabak's ratio significantly decreased for FFA group (p = 0.010 and 0.045, respectively), when compared with RFA group. Conclusion Both the appliances, twin block (RFA) and AdvanSync2 (FFA), are effective for correction of skeletal class-II malocclusion. Both the appliances produced similar effects in the sagittal plane but for better vertical control twin block should be the appliance of choice. AdvanSync2 appliance could be preferred over twin block appliance when dentoalveolar and slight retrusive effect on the maxilla is desired especially for individuals in postpubertal growth spurt.

Effects of Orthodontic Functional Appliances in Relation to Skeletal Maturation of Cervical Vertebrae in Class II Malocclusion

Aim: To evaluate the effects produced by functional orthodontic appliances at dental and skeletal level in relation to the level of skeletal maturation in class II patients. Study design: Longitudinal and observational study. Patients selected for the study had been wearing Sander Bite Jumping Appliance (SBJA) for at least 12 months; they were first diagnosed (T1) with skeletal class II according to Ricketts’ cephalometric analysis, and had had lateral cephalograms taken before and after orthopaedic treatment (T2). Variables studied at T1 and T2 were: facial convexity, inclination of the upper and lower incisors, and facial depth. Results were compared between T1 and T2 for each variable and in relation to cervical maturation stage (CVS) according to the Lamparski analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using Shapiro–Wilk, t-student, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and multiple comparison tests, taking as statistically significant a p-value <0.05. Results: A final sample of 235 patients was obtained. Statistically significant differences were found in the inclination of the mandibular incisors between T1 and T2 and among the different cervical stages when the functional appliances were placed in CVS1 (p = 0.000), CVS2 (p = 0.04) or CVS5 (p = 0.048). For the remaining variables, significant differences were also found between T1 and T2, but these differences were similar in all cervical stages. Conclusions: A significant proclination of the mandibular incisors was found when the functional appliance was placed during CVS1, CVS2, or CVS5. Time of placement of the functional appliances was not statistically significant for the remaining variables studied.

Treatment of Class II Malocclusion With Removable Functional Appliances: A Narrative Review

Around half of all malocclusions that need orthodontic treatment are class II in nature. Patients with class II malocclusion primarily seek treatment for aesthetic improvement. Most of the skeletal class II malocclusions are because of mandibular deficiency, and can be best treated during the growing phase of development by removable functional appliances. The objective of this review is to evaluate and compare skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of various removable functional appliances in the treatment of class II malocclusion. Manual and electronic databases were searched, and out of 5,711 articles, 221 abstracts were shortlisted and reviewed. A total of 19 articles that fulfilled the selection criteria were then retrieved and analyzed. A significant increase in mandibular length and dentoalveolar effects with an increase in vertical dimension in a short time were observed with Twin-Block appliance treatment, followed by Bionator appliance treatment. The long-term stability of results achieved with Twin-Block appliance treatment is still questionable. In addition, Frankel appliance treatment effects are more skeletal in nature, with better control in the vertical dimension. However, it takes a more extended treatment duration to produce similar effects. Based on available evidence, we are convinced that removable functional appliances are valuable tools for correction of the class II malocclusion at a growing age with horizontal growth pattern.

Skeletal Class II Malocclusion Treated with AdvanSync 2 - A Case Report

Treatment of complex malocclusion poses a challenge for the orthodontist because of its multifactorial aetiology. Class II malocclusion is the most frequently encountered and treated malocclusion in orthodontic practice and affects approximately 14.6 % of the North Indian population.1 A common reason for Class II malocclusion is mandibular skeletal retrusion which is the most common characteristic, as reported by McNamara.2 This can be caused by genetic or hereditary factors. When evaluating treatment options for Class II patients, the extent of the skeletal discrepancy and the skeletal maturity of the patient needs to be considered. Treatment may range from dental compensation including camouflage with extractions to surgical procedures targeted at moving the jaw at fault. In growing patients, growth modification with functional appliances offers an intermediate treatment option. Functional appliances are basically of two types; Removable and Fixed. Removable functional appliances such as Activator, Bionator, Frankel Function regulator and Twin Block appliance change Class II relationship by the transmission of soft tissue tension to the dentition. Treatment success with these appliances relies heavily on patient compliance. Therefore, in non-compliant patients, fixed Class II correctors in conjunction with fixed orthodontic appliances are the best choice.3 Fixed functional appliances generate continuous stimuli for mandibular growth without break and permit better adaptation to functions like mastication, swallowing, speech and respiration.1 The Herbst fixed functional appliance has been used routinely for Class II patients and has undergone many design variations over time.4 The AdvanSync2 Class II corrector is a recently introduced fixed functional appliance. It has a much smaller size than the conventional Herbst appliances, is easier to place, activate and remove and most importantly, can be used in conjunction with full-arch fixed appliances throughout.3 Here we describe a case report of a patient treated with the AdvanSync2 Class II corrector and the findings observed in the sagittal and vertical dimensions

Steering the Mandible in the Right Direction : Forsus Case Series

We are in the process of discovery of new vistas for technological advances in terms of various appliances with a vision of making orthodontic treatment compliance free as well as successful. Due to improved technology, the enigma of treating the Class II syndrome is palliated. “Out of the box” thinking has become a norm to treat certain situations that were not corrected in noncompliant patients. Fixed functional appliances are valuable tools introduced to assist the correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion with mandibular retrognathia at the deceleration stage of growth for achieving stable results. In this direction a case series is reported of patients having the above conditions and undergoing orthodontic treatment using a Forsus FFA. Joining hands with technology is a win-win situation for both the patient and the orthodontist.

A Cephalometric Evaluation and Comparison of Skeletal, Dentoalveolar, and Soft Tissue Changes Brought about by the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device and PowerScope Fixed Functional Appliance

Background: Though studies have been conducted on the PowerScope, not many researches are available in the literature which compare its effects with other fixed functional appliances. Therefore, the aim of our study was cephalometric evaluation and comparison of the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes brought about by the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device and PowerScope appliance. Materials and Methods: Pre and Posttreatment cephalometric records of 20 patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with fixed functional appliances (Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device and PowerScope) were compared. Values of various cephalometric parameters were used to evaluate the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes. Wilcoxon signed-rank test (intragroup comparison) and Mann–Whitney U test (intergroup) were used to see significant differences in the parameters ( P ≤ .05). Results: Both the appliances were successful in correcting the Class II discrepancy. Skeletal changes were seen significantly in both the groups, though they were more in the Forsus patients. Dentoalveolar changes were predominantly seen in PowerScope patients. Also, an improvement in soft tissue profile was seen in both the groups. Conclusion: From our study, we concluded that the PowerScope and the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device are equally good options for the correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion due to a retrognathic mandible, as they achieve changes in all the three aspects: skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue.

Fixed Functional Appliances

Considering the large number of fixed functional appliances, choosing the best device for your patient is not an easy task. To describe the development of fixed functional appliances as well as our 20-year experience working with them. Fixed functional appliances are grouped into flexible, rigid and hybrid. They are different appliances, whose action is described here. Four clinical cases will be reported with a view in illustrating the different appliances. Rigid fixed functional appliances provide better skeletal results than flexible and hybrid ones. Flexible and hybrid appliances have similar effects to those produced by class II elastics. They ultimately correct class II with dentoalveolar changes. From a biomechanical standpoint, fixed functional appliances are more recommended to treat class II in dolichofacial patients, in comparison to class II elastics. The electromyographic (EMG) activity of masticatory muscles was monitored longitudinally with chronically implanted EMG electrodes to determine whether functional appliances produce a change in postural EMG activity of the muscles. Pre-appliance and post-appliance EMG levels in four experiments that had been fitted with functional appliances were compared against the background of EMG levels in controls without appliances. The insertion of two types of functional appliance to induce mandibular protrusion was associated with a decrease in postural EMG activity of the superior and inferior heads of the lateral pterygoid, superficial masseter, and anterior digastric muscles; the decrease in the first three muscles was statistically significant. This decreased postural EMG activity persisted for approximately 6 weeks, with a gradual return towards pre-appliance levels during a subsequent 6-week period of observation. Progressive mandibular advancement of 1.5 to 2 mm every 10 to 15 days did not prevent the decrease in postural EMG activity. KEY WORDS Orthodontics, Class II Malocclusion, Fixed Functional Appliance.