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.     

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.     

Ethnic differences in craniofacial and upper spine morphology in children with skeletal Class II malocclusion

Objectives:To analyze differences in upper cervical spine and craniofacial morphology, including posterior cranial fossa and growth prediction signs, between Danish and South Korean pre-orthodontic skeletal Class II children and to analyze associations between upper cervical spine morphology and craniofacial characteristics.Materials and Methods:One hundred forty-six skeletal Class II children—93 Danes (54 boys and 39 girls, mean age 12.2 years) and 53 Koreans (27 boys and 26 girls, mean age 10.8 years)—were included. Upper spine morphology, Atlas dimensions, and craniofacial morphology, including posterior cranial fossa and growth prediction signs, were assessed on lateral cephalograms. Differences and associations were analyzed by multiple linear and logistic regression analyses adjusted for age and gender.Results:Significant differences between the ethnic groups were found in the sagittal and vertical craniofacial dimensions (P < .001), mandibular shape (P < .01), dental relationship (P < .01), posterior cranial fossa (P < .05), and growth prediction signs (P < .001). No significant differences were found in upper spine morphology and Atlas dimensions between the groups. Upper spine morphology/dimensions were significantly associated with the cranial base angle (P < .01), sagittal craniofacial dimensions (P < .001), posterior cranial fossa (P < .001), and growth prediction signs (P < .05).Conclusions:Upper spine morphology/dimensions may be valuable as predictive factors in treatment planning for growing Class II children.     

Comparison of arch width,alveolar width and buccolingual inclination of teeth between Class II division 1 malocclusion and Class I occlusion

Objective:To compare the arch width, alveolar width, and buccolingual inclination of maxillary and mandibular posterior teeth between Class II division 1 malocclusion and Class I occlusion.Materials and Methods:Forty-five subjects with Class I occlusion and 45 subjects with Class II division 1 malocclusion were selected to measure the maxillary and mandibular arch width and alveolar width of premolars and first molars with digital caliper. Buccolingual inclination of maxillary and mandibular premolars and first molars were measured with a modified universal bevel protractor.Results:All of the posterior teeth in both groups were lingually tilted. The maxillary premolars and first molars were significantly more lingually tilted (P < .05) in Class II division 1 malocclusion than in Class I occlusion. Mandibular first premolars were significantly less lingually tilted in Class II division 1 malocclusion than in Class I occlusion. No significant difference of buccolingual inclination was found in mandibular second premolars and first molars between the two groups. No significant difference in maxillary and mandibular arch width and alveolar width was found between the two groups.Conclusions:Buccolingual inclination rather than arch width and alveolar width plays an important role in transverse discrepancy of Class II division 1 malocclusion.     

Treatment and posttreatment effects induced by the Forsus appliance: A controlled clinical study

Objective:To evaluate treatment and posttreatment dentoskeletal effects induced by the Forsus device (FRD) in growing patients with Class II malocclusion in a retrospective controlled clinical study.Materials and Methods:Thirty-six Class II patients (mean [SD] age 12.3 [1.2] years) were treated consecutively with the FRD protocol and compared with a sample of 20 subjects with untreated Class II malocclusion (mean [SD] age 12.2 [0.9] years). Lateral cephalograms were taken at the beginning of treatment, at the end of comprehensive treatment (after 2.3 ± 0.4 years), and at a postretention period (after 2.3 ± 1.1 years from the end of comprehensive treatment). Statistical comparisons were carried out with the unpaired t-test and Benjamini-Hochberg correction (P < .05).Results:After comprehensive treatment, the FRD sample showed a significant restriction of the sagittal maxillary growth together with a significant correction in overjet, overbite, and molar relationship. During the overall observation interval, the FRD group exhibited no significant sagittal or vertical skeletal changes, while significant improvements were recorded in overjet (−3.8 mm), overbite (−1.5 mm), and molar relationship (+3.7 mm).Conclusion:The FRD protocol was effective in correcting Class II malocclusion mainly at the dentoalveolar level when evaluated 2 years after the end of comprehensive treatment.     

Dentoskeletal effects produced by a Jasper Jumper with an anterior bite plane

Objective:The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the dentoskeletal effects produced by a modified Jasper Jumper with an anterior bite plane for the correction of Class II division 1 malocclusion.Materials and Methods:A sample of 32 growing patients (mean age  =  11.9 ± 1.4 years) with Class II division 1 malocclusion and increased overbite were treated with a modified Jasper Jumper (JJ) and anterior bite plane protocol and compared with a matched control group of 30 subjects with untreated Class II malocclusion (mean age 12.2 ± 0.8 years). Lateral cephalograms were taken before treatment (T1) and at the end of comprehensive treatment (T2). Mean treatment duration was 2.1 ± 0.4 years. The T1–T2 changes in the two groups were compared with Student’s t-tests for independent samples.Results:The JJ group was successfully treated to a Class I occlusal relationship with a significant reduction in overjet (–3.9 mm, P < .001) and overbite (–3.1 mm, P < .001). The JJ group exhibited a significant increase in mandibular length and a significant improvement in maxillomandibular sagittal skeletal relationships. The lower incisors were significantly proclined, while the lower first molars demonstrated significant movement in a mesial direction.Conclusions:Use of a modified JJ appliance and anterior bite plane is an effective protocol for the treatment of Class II malocclusion with increased overbite and greater skeletal (75%) than dentoalveolar (25%) effects mainly at the mandibular level.     

Comparison of stepwise vs single-step advancement with the Functional Mandibular Advancer in Class II division 1 treatment

Objective:To compare two groups of subjects at the peak of the pubertal growth period treated with the Functional Mandibular Advancer (FMA; Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany) appliance using either single-step or stepwise mandibular advancement.Materials and Methods:This study was conducted on 34 Class II division 1 malocclusion subjects at or just before the peak phase of pubertal growth as assessed by hand-wrist radiographs. Subjects were assigned to two groups of mandibular advancement, using matched randomization. Both groups were treated with the FMA. While the mandible was advanced to a super Class I molar relation in the single-step advancement group (SSG), patients in the stepwise mandibular advancement group (SWG) had a 4-mm initial bite advancement and subsequent 2-mm advancements at bimonthly intervals. The material consisted of lateral cephalograms taken before treatment and after 10 months of FMA treatment. Data were analyzed by means paired t-tests and an independent t-test.Results:There were statistically significant changes in SNB, Pg horizontal, ANB, Co-Gn, and Co-Go measurements in both groups (P < .001); these changes were greater in the SWG with the exception of Co-Go (P < .05). While significant differences were found in U1-SN, IMPA, L6 horizontal, overjet, and overbite appraisals in each group (P < .001), these changes were comparable (P > .05).Conclusion:Because of the higher rates of sagittal mandibular skeletal changes, FMA using stepwise advancement of the mandible might be the appliance of choice for treating Class II division 1 malocclusions.     

Comparative evaluation of treatment effects between two fixed functional appliances for correction of Class II malocclusion: A single-center,randomized controlled trial

Objective:The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of PowerScope and Forsus in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion.Materials and Methods:This was a 2-arm parallel, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. A total of 28 Class II division 1 malocclusion patients indicated for treatment with fixed functional appliances were randomized and equally divided (n = 14) among PowerScope (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wis; mean age 14.11 ± 1.3 years) and Forsus (3M Unitek Corp, Monrovia, Calif; mean age 15.5 ± 1.1 years) groups. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of PowerScope and Forsus were compared. The secondary outcomes were evaluation of patient comfort and operator convenience. Randomization was accomplished with a 1:1 allocation ratio, and concealment was achieved by sealed opaque envelopes. The participants and data collectors were all blinded to study group allocation. Data were analyzed for 26 patients, 13 in each group, as one patient from each group discontinued treatment. Statistical comparisons were carried out using Student''s t-tests and chi square tests (P ≤ .05).Results:A significantly greater mesial mandibular movement and improvement in sagittal skeletal relation were found in the Forsus patients (P ≤ .05). The forward movement of the mandibular molar and incisors were greater in the PowerScope patients (2.3 mm and 2.80 mm) than in the Forsus patients (1.9 mm and 2.38 mm).Conclusions:Both PowerScope and Forsus are effective in correcting Class II malocclusion. The percentage of dentoalveolar effects in correcting Class II malocclusion is more for PowerScope when compared with Forsus. Patient comfort was the same with both appliances. This trial was registered.     

Effectiveness of twin-block and Mandibular Protraction Appliance-IV in the improvement of pharyngeal airway passage dimensions in Class II malocclusion subjects with a retrognathic mandible

Objective:To test the hypothesis that twin-block and Mandibular Protraction Appliance-IV (MPA-IV) are not effective in improving the pharyngeal airway passage (PAP) dimensions among Class II malocclusion subjects with a retrognathic mandible.Materials and Methods:Eighty-three subjects ranging in age from 8 to 14 years were divided into four groups. Group I included 30 Class I malocclusion subjects (healthy controls); group II consisted of 16 Class II malocclusion subjects (Class II controls); group III had 16 subjects in whom Class II malocclusion was treated by MPA-IV; and the remaining 21 subjects formed group IV, whose Class II malocclusions were corrected by twin-block appliance. Lateral cephalograms recorded at the beginning of orthodontic treatment in group I subjects and at the beginning and end of follow-up/treatment with functional appliance in group II, III, and IV subjects were analyzed to determine the PAP dimensions. Paired t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and Tukey tests were applied for statistical analysis, and a P-value .05 was considered statistically significant.Results:Soft palate length was decreased significantly in group III (P < .05) and group IV (P < .001) subjects. Soft palate thickness in group IV subjects was increased significantly as compared to group II (P < .05) and group III (P < .01) subjects. The improvement in soft palate inclination in group III and group IV subjects was significant (P < .01). The oropharynx depth was increased significantly in group III (P < .05) and group IV (P < .001) subjects. The depth of the hypopharynx was increased significantly (P < .01) in group IV subjects.Conclusions:The twin-block appliance was more efficient than the MPA-IV in the improvement of PAP dimensions among Class II malocclusion subjects with retrognathic mandible.     

Cephalometric characteristics of Class II division 1 malocclusion in a Saudi population living in the western region

Objective

To describe and analyze the cephalometric dento-skeletal characteristics associated with Angle’s Class II, division 1 malocclusion in Saudi population living in the western region.

Materials and methods

The material examined included 149 lateral head radiographs comprising two series: (1) 85 films of children with Class II, division 1 malocclusion and (2) 62 films of children with “normal” occlusion. Age range of the representing children was 10–13 years.

Results

In Class II division 1 subjects, the maxilla was prognathic in relation to anterior cranial base. The mandible was normally positioned in relation to anterior cranial base. Upper incisors were proclined and lower incisors were normally positioned. The cranial base angle was not different between the two groups.

Conclusions

In the western region of Saudi Arabia, Class II division 1 malocclusion has specific characteristics. The presence of prognathic maxilla, in this sample, indicates that the use of head gear therapy might be more appropriate than functional appliances when treating Class II division 1 malocclusion in Saudis living in the Western region.     

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.     

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.     

Cranial base characteristics in anteroposterior malocclusions: A meta-analysis

Objective:To investigate cranial base characteristics in malocclusions with sagittal discrepancies.Materials and Methods:An electronic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A fixed- or random-effect model was applied to calculate weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) according to statistical heterogeneity. Outcome measures were anterior, posterior, and total cranial base length and cranial base angle. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias were conducted.Results:Twenty studies that together included 1121 Class I, 1051 Class II, and 730 Class III cases qualified for the final analysis. Class III malocclusion demonstrated significantly reduced anterior (95% CI: −1.74, −0.53; P < .001 vs Class I; 95% CI: −3.30, −2.09; P < .001 vs Class II) and total cranial base length (95% CI: −3.33, −1.36; P < .001 vs Class I; 95% CI: −7.38, −4.05; P < .001 vs Class II). Further, Class II patients showed significantly greater anterior and total cranial base length than did Class I patients (95% CI: 0.51, 1.87; P < .001 for SN; 95% CI: 2.20, 3.30; P < .001 for NBa). Cranial base angle was significantly smaller in Class III than in Class I (95% CI: −3.14, −0.93; P < .001 for NSBa; 95% CI: −2.73, −0.68; P  =  .001 for NSAr) and Class II malocclusions (95% CI: −5.73, −1.06; P  =  .004 for NSBa; 95% CI: −6.11, −1.92; P < .001 for NSAr) and greater in Class II than in Class I malocclusions (95% CI: 1.38, 2.38; P < .001 for NSBa).Conclusions:This meta-analysis showed that anterior and total cranial base length and cranial base angle were significantly smaller in Class III malocclusion than in Class I and Class II malocclusions, and that they were greater in Class II subjects compared to controls.     

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 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.     

Treatment Effects of Twin-Block and Mandibular Protraction Appliance-IV in the Correction of Class II Malocclusion

Objective:To evaluate the treatment effects of twin-block and Mandibular Protraction Appliance-IV (MPA-IV) in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion.Methods:Fifty North Indian girls with Class II division 1 malocclusion, in the age range of 9–13 years, were chosen. The subjects were divided among a control group (n  =  10), a twin-block group (n  =  25), and an MPA group (n  =  15). Pre–follow-up and post–follow-up lateral cephalograms of control subjects and pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of the treatment subjects were traced manually and subjected to a pitchfork analysis.Results:Neither twin-block nor MPA-IV significantly restricted the forward growth of maxilla. Mandibular growth and improvement in the sagittal skeletal relation were significantly greater in the twin-block subjects. Distal movement of the maxillary dentition and mesial movement of the mandibular dentition were more prominent in the MPA-IV subjects. Molar correction and overjet reductions were significantly greater in the treatment subjects (P < .001).Conclusion:Twin-block and MPA-IV were effective in correcting the molar relationships and reducing the overjet in Class II division 1 malocclusion subjects. However, twin-block contributed more skeletal effects than MPA-IV for the correction of Class II malocclusion.     

Long-term skeletal effects of high-pull headgear followed by fixed appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusions

Objectives:The long-term skeletal effects of Class II treatment in growing individuals using high-pull facebow headgear and fixed edgewise appliances have not been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term skeletal effects of treatment using high-pull headgear followed by fixed orthodontic appliances compared to an untreated control group.Materials and Methods:Changes in anteroposterior and vertical cephalometric measurements of 42 Class II subjects (n = 21, mean age = 10.7 years) before treatment, after headgear correction to Class I molar relationship, after treatment with fixed appliances, and after long-term retention (mean 4.1 years), were compared to similar changes in a matched control group (n = 21, mean age = 10.9 years) by multivariable linear regression models.Results:Compared to control, the study group displayed significant long-term horizontal restriction of A-point (SNA = −1.925°, P < .0001; FH-NA = −3.042°, P < .0001; linear measurement A-point to Vertical Reference = −3.859 mm, P < .0001) and reduction of the ANB angle (−1.767°, P < .0001), with no effect on mandibular horizontal growth or maxillary and mandibular vertical skeletal changes. A-point horizontal restriction and forward mandibular horizontal growth accompanied the study group correction to Class I molar, and these changes were stable long term.Conclusions:One phase treatment for Class II malocclusion with high-pull headgear followed by fixed orthodontic appliances resulted in correction to Class I molar through restriction of horizontal maxillary growth with continued horizontal mandibular growth and vertical skeletal changes unaffected. The anteroposterior molar correction and skeletal effects of this treatment were stable long term.     

Upper airway changes after Xbow appliance therapy evaluated with cone beam computed tomography

Objective:To determine the treatment effects of the Xbow appliance on the upper airway dimensions and volume using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT); to evaluate the cephalometric changes in the skeletal and dental structures of the skeletal Class II patients.Materials and Methods:The sample consisted of 25 Class II patients (11 male, 14 female) with a mean age of 11.1 ± 1.1 years. CBCT images were obtained at the beginning of the treatment (T0) and after the debonding of the Xbow (T1).Results:Changes in superior, middle, and inferior parts of the oropharynx in the retroglossal region and changes in the oropharyngeal airway volume were statistically significant (P < .05, P < .01). The differences favoring the Xbow for the changes in the direction of Class II correction included SNA, SNB, ANB, maxillary depth angles, and point A-NPg and Co-B distances. Data of the dental parameters showed palatal tipping and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping of the mandibular incisors, and mesial movement and extrusion of the mandibular molars.Conclusions:Treatment with the Xbow appliance in Class II patients resulted in favorable increase in the oropharyngeal airway dimensions and volume. Further studies with larger study samples and with control groups are needed.     

Frankel 2 appliance versus the Modified Twin Block appliance for Phase 1 treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A randomized clinical trial

Objective:To compare Phase 1 treatment, using the Frankel 2 (FR2) or the modified Twin Block (MTB), for Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents with respect to: treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives.Materials and Methods:Sixty participants with a Class II division 1 malocclusion were randomly assigned to either the FR2 or MTB appliance in a two-armed parallel randomized clinical trial with an allocation ratio of 1 to 1. Time to achieve a Class I incisor relationship was the primary outcome. The number of appliance breakages was recorded. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was used to evaluate pre- and post-treatment occlusal outcome on study models. Participants completed the child OHRQoL (oral health-related quality of life), Piers-Harris, Standard Continuum of Aesthetic Need (SCAN), and Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score (OASIS) questionnaires pre- and post-treatment; parents completed a SCAN questionnaire.Results:Forty-two participants completed treatment (FR2: 20; MTB: 22). Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data for noncompleters. Mean treatment duration was similar for the two appliances (FR2: 376 days [SD 101]; MTB: 340 days [SD 102]; P = .41). There were no significant differences in mean number of appliance breakages (FR2: 0.3 SD 0.7; MTB: 0.4 SD 0.8; P = .67 or mean PAR score P = .48). Patient and parent perspectives did not differ between appliances (P > .05).Conclusions:Phase 1 treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives were similar in 11–14 year olds with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated using the FR2 or MTB appliance.     

Changes in temporomandibular joint disc position and form following Herbst and fixed orthodontic treatment

Objective:To determine the changes in the position and form of the temporomandibular joint articular disc in adolescents with Class II division 1 malocclusion and mandibular retrognathism treated with the Herbst appliance (phase I) and fixed orthodontic appliance (phase II).Materials and Methods:Thirty-two consecutive adolescents went through phase I of treatment and 23 completed phase II. The temporomandibular joints were evaluated qualitatively by means of magnetic resonance images at the beginning of treatment (T1), during phase I (T2), at the end of phase I (T3), and at the end of phase II (T4).Results:Significant changes in disc position were not observed with the mouth closed between T1 × T3 (P  =  .317), T3 × T4 (P  =  .287), or T1 × T4 (P  =  .261). At T2, on average, the disc was positioned regressively. With the mouth open, no difference was observed between T1 × T3 (P  =  .223) or T1 × T4 (P  =  .082). We did observe a significant difference between T3 × T4 (P < .05). Significant changes in the disc form were found with the mouth closed between T1 × T2 (P < .001) and T2 × T3 (P < .001).Conclusions:At the end of the two-phase treatment, in general terms, the position and form of the initial articular discs were maintained; however, in some temporomandibular joints some seemingly adverse effects were observed at T4.