INTRODUCTION: In this study, we cephalometrically compared changes in the dentoskeletal and soft tissues after orthodontic treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions between the cervical headgear (CHG) and the mandibular protraction appliance (MPA) followed by fixed appliances. METHODS: The sample consisted of 50 patients divided into 2 groups of 25 patients each (13 male, 12 female). Group 1 patients were treated with CHG and fixed appliance, and group 2 patients were treated with the MPA and fixed appliances. The patients were matched according to sex, age, treatment time, and initial cephalometric variables. The groups were compared regarding pretreatment stage and treatment changes, with t tests, at P <.05. RESULTS: The CHG group showed statistically greater restriction of the anterior displacement of the maxilla, improvement of the skeletal Class II relationship, decreased facial convexity, extrusion and distalization of the maxillary first molar, and extrusion of the mandibular incisors. The MPA group had statistically greater increases in maxillary length, mandibular protrusion, maxillary incisor retrusion, mesial displacement of the mandibular first molars, and protrusion of the lower lip. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in Class II malocclusion correction between the CHG and the MPA were that the CHG corrected the Class II malocclusion primarily through greater action on the maxillary skeletal and dentoalveolar structures as compared with the MPA, which corrected the malocclusion through greater action on the mandibular dentoalveolar structures.
INTRODUCTION: In this study, we cephalometrically compared changes in the dentoskeletal and soft tissues after orthodontic treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions between the cervical headgear (CHG) and the mandibular protraction appliance (MPA) followed by fixed appliances. METHODS: The sample consisted of 50 patients divided into 2 groups of 25 patients each (13 male, 12 female). Group 1 patients were treated with CHG and fixed appliance, and group 2 patients were treated with the MPA and fixed appliances. The patients were matched according to sex, age, treatment time, and initial cephalometric variables. The groups were compared regarding pretreatment stage and treatment changes, with t tests, at P <.05. RESULTS: The CHG group showed statistically greater restriction of the anterior displacement of the maxilla, improvement of the skeletal Class II relationship, decreased facial convexity, extrusion and distalization of the maxillary first molar, and extrusion of the mandibular incisors. The MPA group had statistically greater increases in maxillary length, mandibular protrusion, maxillary incisor retrusion, mesial displacement of the mandibular first molars, and protrusion of the lower lip. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in Class II malocclusion correction between the CHG and the MPA were that the CHG corrected the Class II malocclusion primarily through greater action on the maxillary skeletal and dentoalveolar structures as compared with the MPA, which corrected the malocclusion through greater action on the mandibular dentoalveolar structures.
Authors: Antonio Carlos Sakuno; Ana Paula Barbisan da Rosa; Fernando Akio Maeda; Tarcila Trivino; Paulo Eduardo Guedes Carvalho; Fernando César Torres Journal: J Oral Biol Craniofac Res Date: 2019-06-05
Authors: Bruno D'Aurea Furquim; Guilherme Janson; Laura de Castro Cabrera Cope; Karina Maria Salvatore Freitas; José Fernando Castanha Henriques Journal: Dental Press J Orthod Date: 2018 May-Jun