Literature DB >> 18005835

Cervical headgear vs pendulum appliance for the treatment of moderate skeletal Class II malocclusion.

Claude F Mossaz1, Friedrich K Byloff, Stavros Kiliaridis.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare 2 types of treatment for Class II malocclusion. One treatment required compliance by the patients, the other did not.
METHODS: The sample consisted of 60 children who were treated with either conventional cervical headgear combined with full fixed appliances (n = 30), or with a pendulum appliance followed by full fixed appliances (n = 30). At the start of treatment, the mean ages were 11 years 7 months for the headgear group and 11 years 6 months for the pendulum group. The total active treatment time was recorded for all patients, and lateral cephalograms were taken before treatment and after fixed appliance therapy. Angular, horizontal, and vertical changes were recorded to monitor the skeletal and dentoalveolar changes. The lengths of active treatment, the differences between the pretreatment and posttreatment data in both groups, and the differences in the therapeutic effects between the 2 groups were analyzed with the Student t test. The Pearson r correlation coefficient was applied to determine factors affecting the length of active treatment. RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS: Class II correction with headgear had more skeletal effect than with the pendulum. SNA angle reductions were 1.3 degrees in the headgear group and 0.3 degrees in the pendulum group The difference (1.0 degrees , P <.01) was significant. SNPg was not affected by either therapy and increased slightly. ANPg was also more reduced in the headgear group (difference 1.5 degrees , P <.005). Forward movement of ANS was more restricted in the headgear group (difference 1.6 mm, P <.05). No significant difference was found in molar extrusion between both types of treatment. The duration of active treatment was longer in the group that used the pendulum as the first phase (P <.005). The 4.6-month difference corresponded approximately to the length of pendulum wear (5.6 months).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18005835     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.043

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


  8 in total

1.  Outcomes of different Class II treatments : Comparisons using the American Board of Orthodontics Model Grading System.

Authors:  Hatice Akinci Cansunar; Tancan Uysal
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 1.938

2.  Long-term evaluation of the molar movements following Pendulum and fixed appliances.

Authors:  Alberto Caprioglio; Mattia Fontana; Elena Longoni; Mauro Cozzani
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Occlusal Plane Changes After Molar Distalization With a Pendulum Appliance in Growing Patients with Class II Malocclusion: A Retrospective Cephalometric Study.

Authors:  Marco Serafin; Rosamaria Fastuca; Elisabetta Castellani; Alberto Caprioglio
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2021-02-23

4.  Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects.

Authors:  Lisa Mariani; Giuliano Maino; Alberto Caprioglio
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 2.750

5.  Immediate changes in the mandibular dentition after maxillary molar distalization using headgear.

Authors:  Sung-Ja Kang; Hyun-Hee Kim; Hyeon-Shik Hwang; Kyung-Min Lee
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2017-01-25       Impact factor: 1.372

6.  Impact of molar teeth distalization with clear aligners on occlusal vertical dimension: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Silvia Caruso; Alessandro Nota; Shideh Ehsani; Elena Maddalone; Kenji Ojima; Simona Tecco
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 2.757

7.  Effects of pendulum appliance versus clear aligners in the vertical dimension during Class II malocclusion treatment: a randomized prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  Roberta Lione; Alessia Balboni; Valentina Di Fazio; Chiara Pavoni; Paola Cozza
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2022-10-10       Impact factor: 3.747

8.  Treatment of mild Class II malocclusion in growing patients with clear aligners versus fixed multibracket therapy: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Simona Dianiskova; Roberto Rongo; Raffaele Buono; Lorenzo Franchi; Ambra Michelotti; Vincenzo D'Antò
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 2.563

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.