Skeletal and dental effects of molar distalization using a modified palatal anchorage plate in adolescents

Objective:To evaluate and compare skeletal effects and the amount of molar distalization in maxilla using modified palatal anchorage plate (MPAP) vs headgear appliances in adolescent patients.Materials and Methods:Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of 45 Class II malocclusion patients were analyzed; 24 were treated with MPAP appliances (age, 12.4 years) and 21 with headgear (age, 12.1 years). Fixed orthodontic treatment started with the distalization process in both groups. Thirty-two variables were measured and compared between both groups using multivariate analysis of covariates.Results:There was no significant main effect of the appliance type on the treatment results (P  =  .063). Also, there was no significant main effect of the appliance type on both pre- and posttreatment comparisons (P  =  .0198 and .135, respectively). The MPAP and headgear groups showed significant distalization of maxillary first molars (3.06 ± 0.54 mm and 1.8 ± 0.58 mm, respectively; P < .001). Sagittal skeletal maxillomandibular differences were improved after treatment (P < .001), with no significant differences between the two groups. No significant difference in treatment duration was found between the groups.Conclusions:The MPAP showed a significant skeletal effect on the maxilla. Both MPAP and headgear resulted in distalization of maxillary first molars. Therefore, it is recommended that clinicians consider the application of MPAP, especially in noncompliant Class II patients.     

Treatment effects of skeletally anchored Forsus FRD EZ and Herbst appliances: A retrospective clinical study

Objective:To evaluate the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the Forsus FRD appliance with miniplate anchorage inserted in the mandibular symphyses and to compare the findings with a well-matched control group treated with a Herbst appliance for the correction of a skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion.Materials and Methods:The sample consisted of 32 Class II subjects divided into two groups. Group I consisted of 16 patients (10 females and 6 males; mean age, 13.20 ± 1.33 years) treated using the Forsus FRD EZ appliance with miniplate anchorage inserted in the mandibular symphyses. Group II consisted of 16 patients (9 females and 7 males; mean age, 13.56 ± 1.27 years) treated using the Herbst appliance. Seventeen linear and 10 angular measurements were performed to evaluate and compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the appliances using paired and Student''s t-tests.Results:Both appliances were effective in correcting skeletal class II malocclusion and showed similar skeletal and soft tissue changes. The maxillary incisor was statistically significantly more retruded in the skeletally anchored Forsus FRD group (P < .01). The mandibular incisor was retruded in the skeletally anchored Forsus FRD group (−4.09° ± 5.12°), while it was protruded in the Herbst group (7.50° ± 3.98°) (P < .001).Conclusion:Although both appliances were successful in correcting the skeletal Class II malocclusion, the skeletally anchored Forsus FRD EZ appliance did so without protruding the mandibular incisors.     

Class II subdivision treatment with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device vs intermaxillary elastics

Objective:To compare the effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatments implemented in combination with Forsus or intermaxillary elastics in Class II subdivision subjects.Materials and Methods:Twenty-eight Class II subdivision patients were allocated to two groups using matched randomization: Forsus group (mean age, 14.19 ± 1.02 years) and elastics group (mean age, 13.75 ± 1.16 years). Patients received fixed appliance therapy in combination with either Forsus or intermaxillary elastics. The study was conducted on lateral cephalograms and digital models acquired before orthodontic treatment and 10–12 weeks after the fixed appliances were removed.Results:The treatment phase comprising the use of Forsus (4.53 ± 0.91 months) was significantly shorter compared with elastics application (6.85 ± 1.08 months). This was also true for comparing duration of overall comprehensive treatment in both groups. Extrusion and palatal tipping of maxillary incisors and clockwise rotation of the occlusal plane were greater in the elastics group (P < .05). The mandibular incisors were proclined in both groups (P < .001), but no significant difference was observed between groups (P > .05). The mandibular incisors showed intrusion in the Forsus group and extrusion in the elastics group; the difference between groups was significant (P < .05). Overbite was decreased in both groups (P < .001) in similar amounts. Improvement in overjet, mandibular midline deviation, and correction of molar relationship on the Class II side were greater in the Forsus group (P < .05).Conclusion:Forsus is more effective for correcting Class II subdivision malocclusion in a shorter treatment period with minimal patient compliance required.     

Evaluation of the effects of skeletal anchoraged Forsus FRD using miniplates inserted on mandibular symphysis: A new approach for the treatment of Class II malocclusion

Objective:To evaluate the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) appliance with miniplate anchorage for the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion.Material and Methods:The prospective clinical study group included 17 patients (11 girls and 6 boys; mean age 12.96 ± 1.23 years) with Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion and treated with skeletal anchoraged Forsus FRD. After 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel archwire was inserted and cinched back in the maxillary arch, two miniplates were placed bilaterally on the mandibular symphysis. Then, the Forsus FRD EZ2 appliance was adjusted to the miniplates without leveling the mandibular arch. The changes in the leveling and skeletal anchoraged Forsus FRD phases were evaluated by means of the Paired and Student''s t-tests using the cephalometric lateral films.Results:The success rate of the miniplates was found to be 91.5% (38 of 42 miniplates). The mandible significantly moved forward (P < .001) and caused a significant restraint in the sagittal position of the maxilla (P < .001). The overjet correction (−5.11 mm) was found to be mainly by skeletal changes (A-VRL, −1.16 mm and Pog-VRL, 2.62 mm; approximately 74%); the remaining changes were due to the dentoalveolar contributions. The maxillary and mandibular incisors were significantly retruded (P < .001).Conclusion:This new approach was an effective method for treating skeletal Class II malocclusion due to the mandibular retrusion via a combination of skeletal and dentoalveolar changes.     

Long-term skeletal and dental effects and treatment timing for functional appliances in Class II malocclusion

Objective:To analyze the long-term skeletal and dentoalveolar effects and to evaluate treatment timing of Class II treatment with functional appliances followed by fixed appliances.Materials and Methods:A group of 40 patients (22 females and 18 males) with Class II malocclusion consecutively treated either with a Bionator or an Activator followed by fixed appliances was compared with a control group of 20 subjects (9 females and 11 males) with untreated Class II malocclusion. Lateral cephalograms were available at the start of treatment (mean age 10 years), end of treatment with functional appliances (mean age 12 years), and long-term observation (mean age 18.6 years). The treated sample also was divided into two groups according to skeletal maturity. The early-treatment group was composed of 20 subjects (12 females and 8 males) treated before puberty, while the late-treatment group included 20 subjects (10 females and 10 males) treated at puberty. Statistical comparisons were performed with analysis of variance followed by Tukey''s post hoc tests.Results:Significant long-term mandibular changes (Co-Gn) in the treated group (3.6 mm over the controls) were associated with improvements in the skeletal sagittal intermaxillary relationship, overjet, and molar relationship (∼3.0–3.5 mm). Treatment during the pubertal peak was able to produce significantly greater increases in total mandibular length (4.3 mm) and mandibular ramus height (3.1 mm) associated with a significant advancement of the bony chin (3.9 mm) when compared with treatment before puberty.Conclusion:Treatment of Class II malocclusion with functional appliances appears to be more effective at puberty.     

Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances alone or in combination with multibracket appliances: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:To assess skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of fixed functional appliances, alone or in combination with multibracket appliances (comprehensive treatment), on Class II malocclusion in pubertal and postpubertal patients.Materials and Methods:Literature survey was conducted using the Medline, SCOPUS, LILACS, and SciELO databases and The Cochrane Library, and through a manual search. The studies retrieved had to have a matched untreated control group. No restrictions were set regarding the type of fixed appliance, treatment length, or to the cephalometric analysis used. Data extraction was mostly predefined at the protocol stage by two authors. Supplementary mandibular elongation was used for the meta-analysis.Results:Twelve articles qualified for the final analysis of which eight articles were on pubertal patients and four were on postpubertal patients. Overall supplementary total mandibular elongations as mean (95% confidence interval) were 1.95 mm (1.47 to 2.44) and 2.22 mm (1.63 to 2.82) among pubertal patients and −1.73 mm (−2.60 to −0.86) and 0.44 mm (−0.78 to 1.66) among postpubertal patients, for the functional and comprehensive treatments, respectively. For pubertal subjects, maxillary growth restraint was also reported. Nevertheless, skeletal effects alone would not account for the whole Class II correction even in pubertal subjects with dentoalveolar effects always present.Conclusions:Fixed functional treatment is effective in treating Class II malocclusion with skeletal effects when performed during the pubertal growth phase, very few data are available on postpubertal patients.     

Evaluating the effects of functional orthodontic treatment on mandibular osseous structure using fractal dimension analysis of dental panoramic radiographs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of functional appliance treatment on mandibular trabecular structure using fractal dimension (FD) analysis of dental panoramic radiographs.Materials and MethodsThis study was conducted using digital panoramic radiographs of 45 patients with Class II malocclusion treated with functional appliances (treatment group, mean age: 11.39 ± 0.97 years; 23 girls, 22 boys) acquired before (T0) and after (T1) treatment and the panoramic radiographs of 45 control subjects who had undergone no orthodontic treatment (control group, mean age: 11.31 ± 0.87 years; 23 girls, 22 boys). FD values in the condylar process, mandibular corpus, and mandibular angle were analyzed from the panoramic radiographs of both groups.ResultsAnalysis of changes in FD between T0 and T1 revealed significant increases in the FD values of the right and left condylar processes and right mandibular corpus in the treatment group (P < .001) and in the right condylar process in the control group (P < .05). Between-group comparisons demonstrated that the treatment group showed greater changes in the condylar process (right, P < .001; left, P < .05) and right mandibular corpus (P < .05) compared to controls. Correlation analysis between the cephalometric and FD changes in the treatment group showed the right condylar process changes were negatively correlated with GoGn/SN angle (P < .05) and positively correlated with Co-Go (P < .05), although these correlations were weak.ConclusionsFD analysis demonstrated significant changes in trabeculation of the condyle and mandibular corpus in the treatment group compared to the control group. Functional appliance treatment may lead to skeletal correction by altering skeletal form and trabeculation of the mandibular bone.     

A randomized clinical trial comparing mandibular incisor proclination produced by fixed labial appliances and clear aligners

Objective:To compare the mandibular incisor proclination produced by fixed labial appliances and third generation clear aligners.Materials and Methods:Patients underwent a course of orthodontic treatment using either fixed labial appliances or clear aligners (Invisalign). Mandibular incisor proclination was measured by comparing pretreatment and near-end treatment lateral cephalograms. Eligibility criteria included adult patients with mild mandibular incisor crowding (<4 mm) and Class I skeletal bases (ANB, 1–4°). The main outcome was the cephalometric change in mandibular incisor inclination to the mandibular plane at the end of treatment. Eligible patients picking a sealed opaque envelope, which indicated their group allocation, was used to achieve randomization. Data was analyzed using a Welch two-sample t-test.Results:Forty-four patients (mean age, 26.4 ± 7.7 years) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the fixed labial appliance or the clear aligner group. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups: Fixed appliance mean crowding was 2.1 ± 1.3 mm vs clear aligner mean crowding, 2.5 ± 1.3 mm; pretreatment mean mandibular incisor inclination for the fixed appliance group was 90.8 ± 5.4° vs 91.6 ± 6.4° for the clear aligner group. Fixed appliances produced 5.3 ± 4.3° of mandibular incisor proclination. Clear aligners proclined the mandibular incisors by 3.4 ± 3.2°. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P > .05).Conclusion:There was no difference in the amount of mandibular incisor proclination produced by clear aligners and fixed labial appliances in mild crowding cases.     

Treatment of Class II open bite in the mixed dentition with a removable functional appliance and headgear.

Early diagnosis of patients exhibiting open bites that are complicated by skeletal Class II and vertical growth problems can facilitate subsequent treatment. Eight patients with Class II skeletal open bite were treated with the high-pull activator appliance and compared to reasonably matched controls to determine the effects of the appliance. The high-pull activator was found to reduce forward growth of the maxilla and increase mandibular alveolar height, transforming the Class II molar relationship into a Class I molar relationship. The overjet and open bite were decreased, and, in addition, the appliance reduced the amount of forward and downward movement of the maxillary molars, providing vertical control of the maxilla during Class II orthopedic correction. These results demonstrated that open bite complicated by a Class II vertical growth pattern can be treated during the mixed dentition with favorable results by a combination of a removable functional appliance and high-pull headgear.     

Current trends in headgear use for the treatment of Class II malocclusions

Objective:To investigate American and Canadian orthodontists’ opinions and perceptions on the use of headgear in the treatment of Class II malocclusions.Materials and Methods:An online survey was sent to randomly chosen orthodontists (n  =  1000).Results:The study was completed by 948 orthodontists; 62% of the orthodontists indicated that they were using headgear in their practice. Those who were not using the appliance (38%) reported that this was mainly due to the availability of better Class II correctors in the market and lack of patient compliance. Of those who use headgear, 24% indicated that the emphasis on headgear use during their residency was an influential aspect of their decision making (P < .05). Nearly a quarter of those who do not use headgear reported that learning about other Class II correctors through continuing education courses was an important factor (P < .05). There was no difference between the headgear users and nonusers in the year and location of practice. Compared with previous studies, this study showed a decline in the use of headgear among orthodontists.Conclusions:Despite a decline, more than half of the orthodontists (62%) believe headgear is a viable treatment. Availability of Class II correctors in the market and familiarity with these appliances though continuing education courses are the reasons for the remaining 38% of orthodontists to abandon use of the headgear.     

Nonsurgical treatment of adult open bite using edgewise appliance combined with high-pull headgear and class III elastics

This case report describes the effect of a combination of high-pull headgear and Class III elastics on the nonsurgical treatment of an adult open bite. The 19-year 1-month-old Japanese female presented with the anterior open bite of 4.0 mm and mild crowding. She had a skeletal Class II but a Class III molar relationship due to a severe proclination of the mandibular dental arch. Unilateral congenital missing premolars caused a discrepancy between the facial and dental midline. After extraction of two premolars and the impacted mandibular third molars, nonsurgical therapy was performed using the standard edgewise appliance combined with a high-pull headgear and Class III elastics. The successful treatment outcome and stability of the final occlusion indicates that a combination of high-pull headgear and Class III elastics is one of the effective devices in the nonsurgical treatment of open bite and, is especially helpful in uprighting the mandibular dental arch.     

Effects of skeletally anchored Class II elastics: A pilot study and new approach for treating Class II malocclusion

Objective:To evaluate the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of skeletally anchored Class II elastics and compare them with a matched control group treated by a monobloc appliance for the correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion.Materials and Methods:Twelve patients (6 girls, 6 boys) were randomly divided into two groups. In the elastics group, six patients (12.9 ± 1.5 years of age; 3 boys, 3 girls) were treated with skeletally anchored Class II elastics. Two miniplates were placed bilaterally at the ramus of the mandible and the other two miniplates were placed at the aperture piriformis area of the maxilla. In the monobloc group (3 boys and 3 girls; mean age, 12.3 ± 1.6 years), patients used the monobloc appliance. The changes observed in each phase of treatment were evaluated using the Wilcoxon matched-pair sign test. Intergroup comparisons at the initial phase of treatment were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test.Results:There were statistically significant group differences in Co-Gn, B-VRL, U1-PP, U1-VRL, Ls-VRL, with significant increases in these parameters in the elastics group (P < .05). The mandibular incisors were protruded in the monobloc group (5.45 ± 1.23°), whereas they were retruded in the elastics group (−3.01 ± 1.66°; P < .01).Conclusions:The undesirable dentoalveolar effects of the monobloc appliance were eliminated by using miniplate anchorage. Favorable skeletal outcomes can be achieved by skeletal anchorage therapies which could be an alternative to treat skeletal Class II patients with mandibular deficiency.     

Treatment of Class III malocclusion using miniscrew-anchored inverted Forsus FRD: Controlled clinical trial

Objectives:To evaluate the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes after the use of miniscrew-anchored inverted Forsus fatigue-resistant device (FRD) in treatment of Class III malocclusion.Materials and Methods:In this controlled clinical trial, 16 patients (9 girls and 7 boys; age 12.45 ± 0.87 years) were consecutively treated with miniscrew-anchored inverted Forsus FRD. This group was compared with a matched control group of 16 untreated patients (8 girls and 8 boys; age 11.95 ± 1.04 years). Miniscrews were inserted bilaterally between the maxillary canine and first premolar. Forsus FRD was selected and inserted in an inverted manner mesial to the mandibular headgear tube and distal to the maxillary canine bracket.Results:Class I molar and canine relationships with positive overjet were achieved in an average period of 6.4 ± 1.46 months. Maxillary forward growth showed a statistically significant increase (SNA°: 1.73 ± 0.53, P < .5), maxillary incisor proclination was statistically significant (U1 to NA°: −0.39 ± 0.33, P > .5), and the lower incisors exhibited significant retroclination (L1 to NB°: 1.65 ± 0.83, P < .5). Significant lower lip retrusion and upper lip protrusion were obvious treatment outcomes (P < .5).Conclusions:The use of miniscrew-anchored inverted FRD could effectively increase maxillary forward growth, but it did not prevent mesial movement of the maxillary dentition. Significant lower incisor retroclination was observed. Significant esthetic improvement of the facial profile was achieved primarily because of lower lip retrusion and upper lip protrusion.     

Treatment changes of hypo- and hyperdivergent Class II Herbst patients

Objectives:To determine the relative effects of Herbst appliance therapy in hypo- and hyperdivergent patients.Materials and Methods:The treated group included 45 growing Class II, division 1, patients treated with stainless steel crown Herbst appliances, followed by fixed edgewise appliances. The untreated control group consisted of 45 Class II, division 1, subjects, matched to the treated sample based on Angle classification, age, sex, and pretreatment mandibular plane angle (MPA). Subjects were categorized as hypo- or hyperdivergent based on their MPAs. Pre- and posttreatment cephalograms were traced and superimposed on cranial base and mandibular structures.Results:The primary effect of the Herbst in terms of maxillomandibular correction was in the maxilla. It significantly restricted maxillary growth, producing a “headgear effect.” Mandibular treatment changes depended on divergence. Hyperdivergent patients experienced a deleterious backward true mandibular rotation with Herbst treatment. Hypodivergent patients, as well as untreated hypo- and hyperdivergent controls, underwent forward true mandibular rotation. However, hypodivergent chins did not advance any more than expected for untreated hypodivergent Class II patients.Conclusions:Hypo- and hyperdivergent patients benefit from the Herbst''s headgear effect. While the mandibular growth of hypodivergent patients overcomes the negative rotational effects, hyperdivergent patients undergo a deleterious backward mandibular rotation and increases in facial height.     

Adult Class lll Treatment Using a J-Hook Headgear to the Mandibular Arch

Objective:To evaluate the treatment effects of high-pull J-hook headgear on the lower dental arch in nongrowing Class III patients.Materials and Methods:Fourteen nongrowing Class III patients having an Angle Class III malocclusion and ANB angle of less than 1.0 degree, were treated with high-pull J-hook headgear to the lower arch. Using lateral cephalograms and plaster models obtained before treatment (T1), after active treatment (T2), and after the retention period (T3), the treatment outcome was analyzed.Results:The incisal edge of the lower central incisor moved a mean of 1.2 mm to the lingual and 1.7 mm to the occlusal between T1 and T2. The axis of the lower incisor inclined 4.0° to the lingual. The lower first molar cusp moved 1.5 mm to the distal and the root apex moved 2.0 mm to the mesial. Molar angulations were tipped 9.8° to the distal. The occlusal plane showed 4.5° counterclockwise rotation. The mean intermolar width increased 1.5 mm on average. Comparison of the records between T2 and T3 showed minimal changes.Conclusions:Distal movement of the lower dental arch using J-hook headgear was clearly demonstrated, confirming that the application of high-pull J-hook headgear to the lower arch was effective for improvement of the Class III occlusion.     

Asymmetric dental arch treatment with Forsus fatigue appliances: Long-term results

Objectives:To investigate the treatment efficacy and follow-up stability of the asymmetric Forsus appliance by evaluating longitudinal changes in dental arch asymmetry on digital dental models from 21 patients.Materials and Methods:Maxillary and mandibular reference lines were used for measurements of intra-arch asymmetry at pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2), and 4.2 years after treatment (T3). Maxillary and mandibular measurements were performed relative to the dental midline and anterior reference line on digital dental models. To determine the amount of asymmetry between the Class I and Class II sides of a given arch, all maxillary and mandibular parameters were measured on each side of the model separately. Repeated-measures analysis of variance/paired sample t-tests were performed to evaluate dental arch asymmetries at the P < .05 level.Results:The alveolar transverse dimensions of the posterior segment of both arches were increased during treatment (P < .05) and remained stable during the retention period. Class II subdivision malocclusion was caused by distal positioning of the mandibular canine, premolars, and first molar on the Class II side (P < .05). Asymmetry was resolved by treatment with asymmetric Forsus appliances. The resolved asymmetry remained stable over the long term. There were no significant differences between T2 and T3 (P > .05).Conclusions:The asymmetric Forsus appliance can be used to treat dental arch asymmetry in patients with Class II subdivision malocclusions.     

Evaluation of the splint-supported Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in skeletal Class II growing subjects

ObjectivesTo evaluate the use of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD), supported with bimaxillary splints, in treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion.Materials and MethodsData from 46 skeletal Class II females who received either conventional Forsus alone (FFRD group) (15 patients, 12.54 ± 0.90 years), FFRD and bimaxillary splints (splint-FFRD group) (15 patients, 12.29 ± 0.82 years), or were untreated controls (16 subjects, 12.1 ± 0.9 years) were retrieved from previous clinical trials. FFRD was inserted onto the mandibular archwire in the FFRD group after leveling and alignment with multibracket appliances. In the splint-FFRD group, Forsus was inserted between fixed maxillary and mandibular splints. Treatment continued until reaching an edge-to-edge incisor relationship.ResultsBoth treatment groups failed to induce significant mandibular skeletal effects compared to the normal growth exhibited by untreated controls. The splint-FFRD group showed significant reduction of SNA (−0.88° ± 0.51°) and ANB (−1.36° ± 0.87°). The mandibular incisors showed significant proclination in the FFRD (9.17° ± 2.42°) and splint-FFRD groups (7.06° ± 3.34°).ConclusionsThe newly proposed splint-supported FFRD was equally effective as the conventional FFRD in treatment of Class II malocclusion with dento-alveolar changes and additional maxillary restricting effect. It has an additional advantage of immediate initiation of the Class II correction.     

Orthopedic effects of splint high-pull headgear—A cephalometric appraisal

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the orthopedic effect of maxillary splint high-pull head gear appliance on maxillary complex.DesignRetrospective study.SettingsPatients under treatment in the Department of Orthodontics, Azad University, during one year period from November 2003 to March 2004.SubjectsLateral cephalometric radiograph of 26 patients (11 boys and 15 girls, with a mean age of 11.3 years) treated with splint high-pull headgear appliance was compared with a similar control group of 26 individuals (11 boys and 15 girls with a mean age of 12.6 years).Main outcome measuresThe result of the present study showed that the treated group more closely approximated Class I cephalometric values after treatment, whereas the control group with a Class II skeletal pattern did not necessarily become “less Class II” due to growth.ResultsPoint A was held efficiently in the treated group (S–A = 0.4 mm) whereas in the control group it had relocated downward and forward 2.00 mm along sella–point A (S–A) line. Also, the relocation of the point A in the horizontal (X-axis) and vertical (Y-axis) planes confirmed these findings. No rotational changes of palatal plane were recorded in the treated group. Mandibular skeletal changes were similar to the control group. Maxillary dentition was relocated more posteriorly.ConclusionsIt was concluded that the maxillary splint with high-pull headgear in the present study held the maxilla in position without any rotational changes of the palatal plane. Therefore, a normal skeletal relationship was achieved in the treated group through a combination of maxillary basal bone and dentoalveolar growth inhibition and a normal expression of mandibular growth.     

Activator versus cervical headgear: superimpositional cephalometric comparison.

Clinical trials comparing activator and headgear treatment have shown comparable effectiveness in the total result achieved, but the mechanism of correction is still uncertain. Most studies have used conventional cephalometric methods to evaluate treatment effects, and this might be a factor for the inconclusive results. The aim of this retrospective investigation was to compare the effects of activator and cervical headgear treatment with a superimpositional cephalometric method that could discern between vertical and horizontal effects as well as skeletal, dental, and rotational treatment results. The sample consisted of 2 groups of Class II Division 1 patients, treated without extraction by the same clinician (22 patients were treated with a modified activator-type functional appliance, and 30 patients were treated with a combination of cervical headgear and fixed edgewise appliances). Lateral cephalometric radiographs taken at the beginning of treatment and after Class II molar correction were evaluated conventionally and with a superimpositional method. Regarding the conventional cephalometric measurements, the only difference in the anteroposterior dimension between the 2 treatment modalities was the significantly reduced SNA angle in the headgear group. Both appliances appeared to produce minimal changes in FMA and GoGn-SN angles, and there were no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups. Regional superimpositions showed differences in the movement of molars: the maxillary molar was found to move more posteriorly and inferiorly in the headgear group. Conversely, the mandibular molar was found to move toward the occlusal plane more in the activator group. Assessment of mandibular skeletal changes showed that the mandible moved anteriorly by approximately 1 mm more in the activator than in the headgear group. The overall effect of the 2 appliances was found to be clinically comparable. However, the individual components of change showed differences characteristic of each appliance.     

Radiographic assessment of lower third molar eruption in different anteroposterior skeletal patterns and age-related groups

Objective:To analyze radiographic predictors for lower third molar eruption among subjects with different anteroposterior skeletal relations and of different age groups.Materials and Methods:In total, 300 lower third molars were recorded on diagnostic digital orthopantomograms (DPTs) and lateral cephalograms (LCs). The radiographs were grouped according to sagittal intermaxillary angle (ANB), subject age, and level of lower third molar eruption. The DPT was used to analyze retromolar space, mesiodistal crown width, space/width ratio, third and second molar angulation (α, γ), third molar inclination (β), and gonion angle. The LC was used to determine ANB, angles of maxillar and mandibular prognathism (SNA, SNB), mandibular plane angle (SN/MP), and mandibular lengths. A logistic regression model was created using the statistically significant predictors.Results:The logistic regression analysis revealed a statistically significant impact of β angle and distance between gonion and gnathion (Go-Gn) on the level of lower third molar eruption (P < .001 and P < .015, respectively). The retromolar space was significantly increased in the adult subgroup for all skeletal classes. The lower third molar impaction rate was significantly higher in the adult subgroup with the Class II (62.3%) compared with Class III subjects (31.7%; P < .013).Conclusion:The most favorable values of linear and angular predictors of mandibular third molar eruption were measured in Class III subjects. For valid estimation of mandibular third molar eruption, certain linear and angular measures (β angle, Go-Gn), as well as the size of the retromolar space, need to be considered.