Literature DB >> 17920501

Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment.

Calogero Dolce1, Susan P McGorray, Lisamarie Brazeau, Gregory J King, Timothy T Wheeler.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies reported small but significant skeletal changes as a result of early treatment of Class II malocclusion with headgear and functional appliances. In this study, we report on the skeletal changes for 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion.
METHODS: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted sy the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Florida between 1990 and 2000. A total of 261 subjects demonstrating at least a one half-cusp Class II molar relationship and meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study and had at least 1 follow-up visit. During phase 1, 86 subjects were treated with a bionator, 95 were treated with a headgear/biteplane, and 80 served as the observation group. For phase 2, all subjects were then treated with full orthodontics appliances. Skeletal changes were monitored with cephalograms taken at baseline, at the end of early Class II treatment or observation baseline, at the beginning of fixed appliances, and at end of orthodontic treatment.
RESULTS: Overall skeletal changes at the end of phase 1 treatment were as follows: (1) SNA angle increased in the bionator (0.51) and the observation groups (0.67), whereas it decreased (-0.50) in the headgear/biteplane group; (2) SNB angle increased in the bionator (1.36) and the observation groups (0.84), whereas it remained unchanged (0.19) in the headgear/biteplane group; (3) ANB angle decreased in the bionator (-0.85) and the headgear/biteplane groups (-0.72), and was unchanged in the observation group; and (4) the mandibular plane angle increased (1.30) only in the headgear/biteplane group. By the end of full orthodontic treatment, the skeletal differences in all measurements for all 3 groups were within 1 degrees . Linear regression models showed that, during phase 1, baseline value and treatment group were significant. However, when the entire treatment period was considered, treatment group had no effect.
CONCLUSIONS: There is temporary skeletal change as a result of phase I treatment with both appliances but no detectible skeletal difference between 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion by the end of full orthodontic treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17920501     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  11 in total

Review 1.  The use of functional appliances in contemporary orthodontic practice.

Authors:  A T DiBiase; M T Cobourne; R T Lee
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-02-16       Impact factor: 1.626

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

Authors:  E Erin Bilbo; Steven D Marshall; Karin A Southard; Verrasathpurush Allareddy; Nathan Holton; Allyn M Thames; Marlene S Otsby; Thomas E Southard
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Effects of functional orthopedic treatment on mandibular trabecular bone in class II patients using fractal analysis.

Authors:  Esra Bolat Gümüş; Esra Yavuz; Cansu Tufekci
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  Two-phase treatment of class II malocclusion in young growing patient.

Authors:  Krishna U S Nayak; Varun Goyal; Nikhil Malviya
Journal:  Contemp Clin Dent       Date:  2011-10

Review 5.  Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents.

Authors:  Klaus Bsl Batista; Badri Thiruvenkatachari; Jayne E Harrison; Kevin D O'Brien
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-03-13

6.  A survey of orthodontists' perspectives on the timing of treatment: A pilot study.

Authors:  Eman I Al-Shayea
Journal:  J Orthod Sci       Date:  2014-10

7.  Dentoskeletal effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Twin Block appliance in a Brazilian sample: a prospective study.

Authors:  Luciano Zilio Saikoski; Rodrigo Hermont Cançado; Fabrício Pinelli Valarelli; Karina Maria Salvatore de Freitas
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb

8.  Comparison of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of two different mandibular advancement methods: conventional technique vs aesthetic approach.

Authors:  Hasan Camcı; Farhad Salmanpour
Journal:  Eur Oral Res       Date:  2022-05-05

9.  Prospective study of dentoskeletal changes in Class II division malocclusion treatment with twin force bite corrector.

Authors:  Carlos Henrique Guimarães; José Fernando Castanha Henriques; Guilherme Janson; Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida; Janine Araki; Rodrigo Hermont Cançado; Renata Castro; Ravindra Nanda
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  The Jaw Epidemic: Recognition, Origins, Cures, and Prevention.

Authors:  Sandra Kahn; Paul Ehrlich; Marcus Feldman; Robert Sapolsky; Simon Wong
Journal:  Bioscience       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 8.589

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.