Robert Y Wei1, Arjun Atresh2, Antonio Ruellas3, Lucia H S Cevidanes3, Tung Nguyen4, Brent E Larson5, Jonathan E Mangum6, David J Manton7, Paul M Schneider2. 1. Growth and Development, Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: robweibdsc@gmail.com. 2. Growth and Development, Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 4. Department of Orthodontics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 5. Division of Orthodontics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. 6. Growth and Development, Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Growth and Development, Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Centrum voor Tandheelkunde en Mondzorgkunde UMCG, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to quantify and qualify the 3-dimensional (3D) condylar changes using mandibular 3D regional superimposition techniques in adolescent patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusions treated with either a 2-phase or single-phase approach. METHODS: Twenty patients with Herbst appliances who met the inclusion criteria and had cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images taken before, 8 weeks after Herbst removal, and after the completion of multibracket appliance treatment constituted the Herbst group. They were compared with 11 subjects with Class II malocclusion who were treated with elastics and multibracket appliances and who had CBCT images taken before and after treatment. Three-dimensional models generated from the CBCT images were registered on the mandible using 3D voxel-based superimposition techniques and analyzed using semitransparent overlays and point-to-point measurements. RESULTS: The magnitude of lateral condylar growth during the orthodontic phase (T2-T3) was greater than that during the orthopedic phase (T1-T2) for all condylar fiducials with the exception of the superior condyle (P <0.05). Conversely, posterior condylar growth was greater during the orthopedic phase than the subsequent orthodontic phase for all condylar fiducials (P <0.05). The magnitude of vertical condylar development was similar during both the orthopedic (T1-T2) and orthodontic phases (T2-T3) across all condylar fiducials (P <0.05). Posterior condylar growth during the orthodontic phase (T2-T3) of the 2-phase approach decreased for all condylar fiducials with the exception of the posterior condylar fiducial (P <0.05) when compared with the single-phase approach. CONCLUSIONS: Two-phase treatment using a Herbst appliance accelerates condylar growth when compared with a single-phase regime with Class II elastics. Whereas the posterior condylar growth manifested primarily during the orthopedic phase, the vertical condylar gains occurred in equal magnitude throughout both phases of the 2-phase treatment regime.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to quantify and qualify the 3-dimensional (3D) condylar changes using mandibular 3D regional superimposition techniques in adolescent patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusions treated with either a 2-phase or single-phase approach. METHODS: Twenty patients with Herbst appliances who met the inclusion criteria and had cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images taken before, 8 weeks after Herbst removal, and after the completion of multibracket appliance treatment constituted the Herbst group. They were compared with 11 subjects with Class II malocclusion who were treated with elastics and multibracket appliances and who had CBCT images taken before and after treatment. Three-dimensional models generated from the CBCT images were registered on the mandible using 3D voxel-based superimposition techniques and analyzed using semitransparent overlays and point-to-point measurements. RESULTS: The magnitude of lateral condylar growth during the orthodontic phase (T2-T3) was greater than that during the orthopedic phase (T1-T2) for all condylar fiducials with the exception of the superior condyle (P <0.05). Conversely, posterior condylar growth was greater during the orthopedic phase than the subsequent orthodontic phase for all condylar fiducials (P <0.05). The magnitude of vertical condylar development was similar during both the orthopedic (T1-T2) and orthodontic phases (T2-T3) across all condylar fiducials (P <0.05). Posterior condylar growth during the orthodontic phase (T2-T3) of the 2-phase approach decreased for all condylar fiducials with the exception of the posterior condylar fiducial (P <0.05) when compared with the single-phase approach. CONCLUSIONS: Two-phase treatment using a Herbst appliance accelerates condylar growth when compared with a single-phase regime with Class II elastics. Whereas the posterior condylar growth manifested primarily during the orthopedic phase, the vertical condylar gains occurred in equal magnitude throughout both phases of the 2-phase treatment regime.