INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate cephalometric changes in subjects with Class II Division 1 malocclusion who were treated withheadgear (HG) or Fränkel function regulator (FR) and (2) to compare findings from regional superpositions of cephalometric structures with those from conventional cephalometric measurements. METHODS: Cephalographs were taken at baseline, after 1 year, and after 2 years of 65 children enrolled in a prospective randomized clinical trial. The spatial location of the landmarks derived from regional superpositions was evaluated in a coordinate system oriented on natural head position. The superpositions included the best anatomic fit of the anterior cranial base, maxillary base, and mandibular structures. RESULTS: Both the HG and the FR were effective in correcting the distoclusion, and they generated enhanced differential growth between the jaws. Differences between cranial and maxillary superpositions regarding mandibular displacement (Point B, pogonion, gnathion, menton) were noted: the HG had a more horizontal vector on maxillary superposition that was also greater (.0001 < P < .05) than the horizontal displacement observed with the FR. This discrepancy appeared to be related to (1) the clockwise (backward) rotation of the palatal and mandibular planes observed with the HG; the palatal plane's rotation, which was transferred through the occlusion to the mandibular plane, was factored out on maxillary superposition; and (2) the interaction between the inclination of the maxillary incisors and the forward movement of the mandible during growth. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from superpositions agreed with conventional angular and linear measurements regarding the basic conclusions for the primary effects of HG and FR. However, the results suggest that inferences of mandibular displacement are more reliable from maxillary than cranial superposition when evaluating occlusal changes during treatment.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate cephalometric changes in subjects with Class II Division 1 malocclusion who were treated with headgear (HG) or Fränkel function regulator (FR) and (2) to compare findings from regional superpositions of cephalometric structures with those from conventional cephalometric measurements. METHODS: Cephalographs were taken at baseline, after 1 year, and after 2 years of 65 children enrolled in a prospective randomized clinical trial. The spatial location of the landmarks derived from regional superpositions was evaluated in a coordinate system oriented on natural head position. The superpositions included the best anatomic fit of the anterior cranial base, maxillary base, and mandibular structures. RESULTS: Both the HG and the FR were effective in correcting the distoclusion, and they generated enhanced differential growth between the jaws. Differences between cranial and maxillary superpositions regarding mandibular displacement (Point B, pogonion, gnathion, menton) were noted: the HG had a more horizontal vector on maxillary superposition that was also greater (.0001 < P < .05) than the horizontal displacement observed with the FR. This discrepancy appeared to be related to (1) the clockwise (backward) rotation of the palatal and mandibular planes observed with the HG; the palatal plane's rotation, which was transferred through the occlusion to the mandibular plane, was factored out on maxillary superposition; and (2) the interaction between the inclination of the maxillary incisors and the forward movement of the mandible during growth. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from superpositions agreed with conventional angular and linear measurements regarding the basic conclusions for the primary effects of HG and FR. However, the results suggest that inferences of mandibular displacement are more reliable from maxillary than cranial superposition when evaluating occlusal changes during treatment.
Authors: Lucia H C Cevidanes; Ana Emilia Figueiredo Oliveira; Dan Grauer; Martin Styner; William R Proffit Journal: Semin Orthod Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 0.970
Authors: Felipe de Assis Ribeiro Carvalho; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes; Alexandre Trindade Simões da Motta; Marco Antonio de Oliveira Almeida; Ceib Phillips Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Alexandre T Motta; Lucia H S Cevidanes; Felipe A R Carvalho; Marco A O Almeida; Ceib Phillips Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Anna M Hardin; Manish Valiathan; Heesoo Oh; Ryan P Knigge; Kieran P McNulty; Emily V Leary; Dana L Duren; Richard J Sherwood Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Lucia H C Cevidanes; Gavin Heymann; Marie A Cornelis; Hugo J DeClerck; J F Camilla Tulloch Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.650