OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of four different asymmetric headgear systems. DESIGN: A mathematical method for three-dimensional data called finite element analysis. SETTING: The Orthodontic Department, the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and the Metallurgical Engineering Department of the Fluminense Federal University. METHODS: Four systems of delivering an asymmetrical force to headgear were studied: using face-bow arms of different lengths, a symmetric face-bow with one of the arms bent outward in relation to the internal arch, a symmetric face-bow used in combination with a transpalatal arch activated to produce an asymmetric force, and a symmetric face-bow with the outer bow soldered to the inner bow on the side where a larger force will be applied. RESULTS: All four systems were effective in promoting asymmetric distal movement of the molars. However, the symmetrical face-bow with the outer bow soldered to the inner bow (system 4) could be used in asymmetric mechanics if the bows are soldered on the opposite side to the proposed distalization. Lateral and occlusal displacing forces were observed in all systems as well as tip-back and rotational movements. CONCLUSION: The simulated computer model used in this investigation suggests that a face-bow with a symmetrically soldered joint and arms of equal lengths used in combination with a transpalatal arch is the best headgear option when asymmetric movement of upper molars is desired.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of four different asymmetric headgear systems. DESIGN: A mathematical method for three-dimensional data called finite element analysis. SETTING: The Orthodontic Department, the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and the Metallurgical Engineering Department of the Fluminense Federal University. METHODS: Four systems of delivering an asymmetrical force to headgear were studied: using face-bow arms of different lengths, a symmetric face-bow with one of the arms bent outward in relation to the internal arch, a symmetric face-bow used in combination with a transpalatal arch activated to produce an asymmetric force, and a symmetric face-bow with the outer bow soldered to the inner bow on the side where a larger force will be applied. RESULTS: All four systems were effective in promoting asymmetric distal movement of the molars. However, the symmetrical face-bow with the outer bow soldered to the inner bow (system 4) could be used in asymmetric mechanics if the bows are soldered on the opposite side to the proposed distalization. Lateral and occlusal displacing forces were observed in all systems as well as tip-back and rotational movements. CONCLUSION: The simulated computer model used in this investigation suggests that a face-bow with a symmetrically soldered joint and arms of equal lengths used in combination with a transpalatal arch is the best headgear option when asymmetric movement of upper molars is desired.