BACKGROUND: Rigid fixed functional appliances are most commonly used to correct skeletal Class II malocclusions. The objective of this study was to assess orthodontists' preference of different rigid fixed functional appliances used in the U.S.A for correction of skeletal Class II malocclusions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A survey on use and preference of rigid fixed functional appliances for skeletal Class II correction was emailed to 2,227 members of the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO) in the U.S.A. Frequency distribution of different responses and their association with demographic factors was assessed. RESULTS: Out of 140 orthodontists completing the survey, 110 responded as using rigid fixed functional appliances. Eight incomplete responses were eliminated from data analysis. 51.5% (68/132) orthodontists used rigid fixed functional appliances. The most preferred rigid fixed functional appliance was the Herbst appliance with 72% response followed by Mandibular Anterior Repositioning Appliance (24%) and AdvanSync (4%). There was no statistically significant difference in use of rigid fixed functional appliances between different age groups (p=0.284). However, the 40-54 age group used the most rigid fixed functional appliances in practice, followed by the 25-39 year age group and the 55-69 age group using these appliances the least. There was statistical significance between the type of practice setting one works in and the use of rigid fixed functional appliances in practice (p=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: About 52% of orthodontists use rigid fixed functional appliances to correct skeletal Class II malocclusions. The Herbst appliance is the most commonly used and most preferred amongst all rigid fixed functional appliances with a 72% preferred rate. Key words:Orthodontic, Rigid fixed functional appliance, Skeletal Class II, Class II Malocclusion, Mandibular retrognathism, Herbst, Mandibular Anterior Repositioning Appliance (MARA), AdvanSync, Molar to molar, M2M. Copyright:
BACKGROUND: Rigid fixed functional appliances are most commonly used to correct skeletal Class II malocclusions. The objective of this study was to assess orthodontists' preference of different rigid fixed functional appliances used in the U.S.A for correction of skeletal Class II malocclusions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A survey on use and preference of rigid fixed functional appliances for skeletal Class II correction was emailed to 2,227 members of the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO) in the U.S.A. Frequency distribution of different responses and their association with demographic factors was assessed. RESULTS: Out of 140 orthodontists completing the survey, 110 responded as using rigid fixed functional appliances. Eight incomplete responses were eliminated from data analysis. 51.5% (68/132) orthodontists used rigid fixed functional appliances. The most preferred rigid fixed functional appliance was the Herbst appliance with 72% response followed by Mandibular Anterior Repositioning Appliance (24%) and AdvanSync (4%). There was no statistically significant difference in use of rigid fixed functional appliances between different age groups (p=0.284). However, the 40-54 age group used the most rigid fixed functional appliances in practice, followed by the 25-39 year age group and the 55-69 age group using these appliances the least. There was statistical significance between the type of practice setting one works in and the use of rigid fixed functional appliances in practice (p=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: About 52% of orthodontists use rigid fixed functional appliances to correct skeletal Class II malocclusions. The Herbst appliance is the most commonly used and most preferred amongst all rigid fixed functional appliances with a 72% preferred rate. Key words:Orthodontic, Rigid fixed functional appliance, Skeletal Class II, Class II Malocclusion, Mandibular retrognathism, Herbst, Mandibular Anterior Repositioning Appliance (MARA), AdvanSync, Molar to molar, M2M. Copyright:
Authors: Santhosh Jayachandran; William A Wiltshire; Sandra M Hayasaki; Fabio H S L Pinheiro Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Alexandre Moro; Suellen W Borges; Paula Porto Spada; Nathaly D Morais; Gisele Maria Correr; Cauby M Chaves; Lucia H S Cevidanes Journal: Dental Press J Orthod Date: 2018 Mar-Apr