OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment and posttreatment dentoskeletal effects induced by the Mandibular Advancement Repositioning Appliance (MARA) in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The treated sample consisted of 23 consecutively treated patients at prepubertal or pubertal stages, as assessed by the cervical vertebral maturation method. A control group of untreated Class II subjects was generated from published normative growth data. Lateral cephalograms were digitized and superimposed via cephalometric software at three different times: T1, pretreatment; T2, post-MARA treatment; and T3, at least 1 year after T2. The T1-T2, T2-T3, and T1-T3 changes in the treated group were compared to those in the control group with independent-sample Student's t-tests. RESULTS: Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of MARA were assessed after the active phase of the treatment (T1-T2). Mandibular elongation in length (Co-Gn, +2.2 mm) was evident together with lower incisor proclination (IMPA, +5.8 mm). A relapse tendency for IMPA was noticed after removing the appliance (IMPA, -2.1° during T2-T3). Significant skeletal effects (Co-Gn, +2.0 mm) and headgear effects on the maxilla (SNA, -1.2°) were significant in the long term (T1-T3). CONCLUSIONS: The MARA appliance provides an effective correction of Class II malocclusion, which is maintained at a posttreatment observation with a moderate skeletal effect.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment and posttreatment dentoskeletal effects induced by the Mandibular Advancement Repositioning Appliance (MARA) in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The treated sample consisted of 23 consecutively treated patients at prepubertal or pubertal stages, as assessed by the cervical vertebral maturation method. A control group of untreated Class II subjects was generated from published normative growth data. Lateral cephalograms were digitized and superimposed via cephalometric software at three different times: T1, pretreatment; T2, post-MARA treatment; and T3, at least 1 year after T2. The T1-T2, T2-T3, and T1-T3 changes in the treated group were compared to those in the control group with independent-sample Student's t-tests. RESULTS: Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of MARA were assessed after the active phase of the treatment (T1-T2). Mandibular elongation in length (Co-Gn, +2.2 mm) was evident together with lower incisor proclination (IMPA, +5.8 mm). A relapse tendency for IMPA was noticed after removing the appliance (IMPA, -2.1° during T2-T3). Significant skeletal effects (Co-Gn, +2.0 mm) and headgear effects on the maxilla (SNA, -1.2°) were significant in the long term (T1-T3). CONCLUSIONS: The MARA appliance provides an effective correction of Class II malocclusion, which is maintained at a posttreatment observation with a moderate skeletal effect.
Authors: Urban Hägg; A Bakr M Rabie; Margareta Bendeus; Ricky W K Wong; Mang Chek Wey; Xi Du; Jasmine Peng Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Kevin O'Brien; Jean Wright; Frances Conboy; YeWeng Sanjie; Nicky Mandall; Stephen Chadwick; Ivan Connolly; Paul Cook; David Birnie; Mark Hammond; Nigel Harradine; David Lewis; Cathy McDade; Laura Mitchell; Alison Murray; Julian O'Neill; Mike Read; Stephen Robinson; Dai Roberts-Harry; Jonathan Sandler; Ian Shaw Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: José Norberto de Oliveira; Renato Rodrigues de Almeida; Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida; José Norberto de Oliveira Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Giorgio Cacciatore; Luis Tomas Huanca Ghislanzoni; Lisa Alvetro; Veronica Giuntini; Lorenzo Franchi Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Giorgio Cacciatore; Lisa Alvetro; Efisio Defraia; Luis Tomas Huanc Ghislanzoni; Lorenzo Franchi Journal: Korean J Orthod Date: 2014-05-19 Impact factor: 1.372