Literature DB >> 22214390

A comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.

Thikriat S Al-Jewair1, Charles B Preston, Eva-Maria Moll, Terry Dischinger.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects produced by the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of growing patients with Class II malocclusion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using lateral cephalograms of patients consecutively treated with MARA (n  =  40) and AdvanSync (n  =  30) during their skeletal growth spurt as evaluated by the improved cervical vertebral maturation method. A comparison was made with 24 untreated Class II control subjects obtained from the University of Michigan growth study and matched with the experimental groups for skeletal age, sex, and craniofacial morphology. Cephalograms were taken at three time points: (T1) pretreatment, (T2) postfunctional appliance treatment, and (T3) fixed orthodontic treatment completion. Treatment changes were evaluated between the time points using 35 variables. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Scheffe's post hoc test.
RESULTS: At the postfunctional appliances' phase (T2-T1), both appliances showed significant increases in total mandibular length, ramus height, and anterior/posterior facial height. The AdvanSync resulted in significant restriction of maxillary growth, 1° more than MARA. This effect continued during the fixed orthodontic treatment stage (T3-T2). The net changes (T3-T1) revealed significant mandibular growth enhancement with MARA (+2.7mm) and significant headgear effect with AdvanSync. Both appliances caused 5° flaring in mandibular incisors as well as significant decreases in overjet and overbite. The treatment time for AdvanSync was 1 year less than MARA.
CONCLUSION: The MARA and the AdvanSync resulted in normalization of the Class II malocclusion. The AdvanSync showed more headgear effect but less mandibular length enhancement than MARA did. Both appliances showed similar dentoalveolar changes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22214390      PMCID: PMC8823103          DOI: 10.2319/090411-569.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  16 in total

1.  Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy.

Authors:  T Baccetti; L Franchi; L R Toth; J A McNamara
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 2.650

2.  The "Wits" appraisal of jaw disharmony.

Authors:  A Jacobson
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1975-02

3.  Treatment effects of the edgewise Herbst appliance: a cephalometric and tomographic investigation.

Authors:  Ryan VanLaecken; Chris A Martin; Terry Dischinger; Thomas Razmus; Peter Ngan
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.650

4.  Modified camouflage therapy in an adult class I patient with TMJ complaints. A case report.

Authors:  Douglas E Toll; Nenad Popović; Jasminka Andjelić; Nicole Drinkuth
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 1.938

5.  Treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion in adults: stepwise vs single-step advancement with the Herbst appliance.

Authors:  Shimanto K Purkayastha; A Bakr M Rabie; Ricky Wong
Journal:  World J Orthod       Date:  2008

6.  An evaluation of two-phase treatment with the Herbst appliance and preadjusted edgewise therapy.

Authors:  M Lai; J A McNamara
Journal:  Semin Orthod       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 0.970

7.  The headgear effect of the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric long-term study.

Authors:  H Pancherz; M Anehus-Pancherz
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 2.650

8.  Treatment effects of the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance on patients with Class II malocclusion.

Authors:  Valmy Pangrazio-Kulbersh; Jeffrey L Berger; David S Chermak; Richard Kaczynski; Eugene S Simon; Andre Haerian
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  A comparison of the Herbst and Fränkel appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.

Authors:  J A McNamara; R P Howe; T G Dischinger
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  Long-term dentoskeletal changes with the Bionator, Herbst, Twin Block, and MARA functional appliances.

Authors:  Nicole J Siara-Olds; Valmy Pangrazio-Kulbersh; Jeff Berger; Burcu Bayirli
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.079

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Stability of Class II fixed functional appliance therapy--a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Niko C Bock; Julia von Bremen; Sabine Ruf
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2015-03-28       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances alone or in combination with multibracket appliances: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Giuseppe Perinetti; Jasmina Primožič; Giovanna Furlani; Lorenzo Franchi; Luca Contardo
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Airway changes in patients with sleep apnea using AdvanSync2 Class II correctors - a case series.

Authors:  Pasupureddi Keerthana; Gunjan Negi; Prasad Chitra
Journal:  Med Pharm Rep       Date:  2022-07-26

4.  Comparative Analysis of Dentoskeletal Changes of the Twin Block Appliance and the AdvanSync2 Appliance in Treatment of Skeletal Class-II Malocclusion in Pakistani Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Fareena Ghaffar; Abdullah Jan; Obaid Akhtar; Alaina T Mughal; Rooma Shahid; Hafiza Z Shafique; Khadija Bibi; Sundas Mehmood; Nimra Afgan; Rumeesha Zaheer
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2021-12-15
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.