Objective: To determine if the long-term dentoskeletal changes in patients treated with tooth-borne functional appliances were comparable to each other and to matched controls. Materials and Methods: The experimental sample consisted of 80 consecutively treated patients who were equally divided into Bionator, Herbst, Twin Block, and mandibular anterior repositioning appliance (MARA) groups. The control group comprised 21 children with untreated skeletal Class II malocclusions. Lateral cephalograms were taken for the treated group at T 1 (initial records), T 2 (completion of functional therapy), and T 3 (completion of fixed appliance therapy). A repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the differences between and within groups. If ANOVA results were significant, Tukey-Kramer tests were used to determine where the significant differences occurred. (7) Over the long-term, there were no significant soft tissue changes among treated and untreated subjects. Conclusions: No significant dentoskeletal differences were observed long-term, among the various treatment groups and matched controls. (Angle Orthod 2010;80:18-29.)

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: To examine the changes produced by the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance (MARA) appliance and compare the treatment effects to an untreated Class II control group. Materials and Methods: Thirty consecutively treated patients were matched with an untreated control group. Lateral cephalograms were taken at T1, 5 months pre-MARA (CVMS 2.7); T2, immediately after MARA removal and prior to placement of full fixed edgewise appliances (CVMS 4.2); and T3, at least 2 years after MARA removal and completion of edgewise treatment (CVMS 5.4). The mean age of the MARA patients was 11.9 years for boys and 10.8 years for girls. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess if the samples were morphologically comparable at the outset and to test if there were significant differences between the groups for the various increments of change. Given a significant ANOVA, the source of the difference was explored via Tukey-Kramer tests. Results: Restriction of maxillary growth and no significant mandibular growth were observed with the MARA appliance. The Class II correction was obtained mainly by slight maxillary molar distalization and intrusion, in addition to mesial migration of the lower molars and flaring of the lower incisors. No vertical effect was observed with this appliance. Conclusion: The MARA appliance was effective in the treatment of Class II malocclusions. Restriction of maxillary growth and dentoalveolar changes in the maxillary and mandibular arches were responsible for the correction of the Class II malocclusion. Significant mandibular growth did not contribute to this correction. (Angle Orthod. 2012;82:971-977.)

No abstract