Objectives: To investigate how patients adhere to instructions and how force magnitude fluctuates and influences the use of cervical headgear (CHG) therapy. Materials and Methods: In this controlled clinical trial, subjects (n = 40) were treated with CHG with light (L, 300 g) or heavy (H, 500 g) force. Patients were asked to wear CHG for 10 hours per day for 10 months (ie, during sleep), but the importance for treatment of wearing CHG also in the evening hours was emphasized. Adherence to instructions and force magnitude in CHG use were monitored by electronic module (Smartgear, Swissorthodontics, Switzerland). Results: Force magnitude can be set at a certain level, L or H, even if great individual variability is seen in all subjects (0–900 g). Children in the L group used CHG longer per day than those in the H group (9.3 hours ±1.5 hours and 7.8 hours ± 2.1 hours, respectively, P = .002). During evening hours, CHG was used more (P = .02) in the L group than in the H group. In both groups, CHG was used less in the evening hours during school breaks than in the evening hours during school (P < .001). Conclusions: Children with lower force in CHG seem to adhere better to the instructions for CHG use. Daily rhythm also influences the time of appliance use regardless of force magnitude. The force can be set to a certain magnitude level, even though there is substantial individual variability.

Summary Aim The main aim of this study was to study the impact of different force magnitudes on effectiveness in cervical headgear (CHG) therapy. Materials and methods Forty patients were treated with CHG with light (L; 300 g) or heavy (H; 500 g) force in this controlled clinical trial. Patients were asked to wear CHG for 10 hours/day for 10 months. The inner bow of the CHG was expanded (3–4 mm) and the long outer bow bent (10–20 degree) upward in relation to the inner bow. Adherence to instructions and force magnitude in CHG use was monitored by electronic module (Smartgear, Swissorthodontics, Switzerland). Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T1) and after (T2) the treatment and studied with modified Pancherz analysis using a Planmeca Romexis Ceph module (Planmeca, Finland). Results In both groups, skeletal and dental effects were seen. The only statistically significant difference in cephalometric analysis was the inclination of upper incisors at T1 (P = 0.010) and at T2 (P = 0.011). In both groups, a reduction in Sella-Nasion- point A (SNA) angle was found: L group T1 82.7degree (SD ± 3.6degree), T2 82.0degree (SD ± 3.5 degree) and H group T1 82.6 degree (SD ± 4.7 degree), T2 81.5 degree (SD ± 4.5 degree), but no statistically significant difference between the groups. Children in the L group used CHG statistically significantly more than those in the H group (10.0 ± 1.5 hour, and 8.3 ± 2.1 hour, respectively, P = 0.002). Conclusion Children with lower force CHG seem to adhere better to instructions for CHG use. After 10 months of use, no statistically significant differences were found in dental or skeletal outcome. However, in the H group, the outcome was achieved with less daily hours of use.

Summary Aim To study the effect of force magnitude on the maxillary first and second molars in cervical headgear (CHG) therapy. Material and methods In this controlled clinical trial, patients (n = 40) were treated with CHG with a light (L, 300 g, n = 22) or a heavy force (H, 500 g, n = 18) magnitude. The subjects were asked to wear CHG for 10 hours a day for 10 months. The outer bow of the CHG facebow was lifted up for 10–20 degrees and the inner bow was expanded 3–4 mm. Adherence to instructions and force magnitude were monitored using an electronic module (Smartgear, Swissorthodontics, Switzerland). Panoramic and lateral radiographs before (T1) and after treatment (T2) were analysed using a Romexis Cephalometric module (Planmeca, Finland) focussing on the angular, sagittal, and vertical positions of the permanent first and second molars. Results According to the cephalometric analysis of the maxillary first and second molars, distal tipping occurred during T1–T2 in the H group (P = 0.010 and 0.000, respectively), and the change was greater in the H group compared to the L group (P = 0.045 and 0.019, respectively). Based on the panoramic analysis, tipping occurred in the distal direction during therapy in the H group in the second molars compared to the midline or condylar line (P = 0.001 and 0.001; P = 0.008 and 0.003 on the right and left, respectively). Conclusion With heavy force magnitude, the maxillary first and second molars can tilt more easily in the distal direction even if the CHG was used less. Distal tipping of the molar can be considered to be a side effect of CHG therapy.

Summary Aim To study the influence of different force magnitudes on dental arches in cervical headgear (CHG) treatment. Material and methods In this controlled clinical trial, patients (n = 40) were treated with CHG with light (L, 300 g, n = 22) or heavy force (H, 500 g, n = 18) magnitude. Subjects were asked to use CHG for 10 hours a day for 10 months. The outer bow of the CHG facebow was raised 10–20 degrees and the inner bow expanded 3–4 mm. Adherence to instructions and force magnitude were monitored with an electronic module (Smartgear, Swissorthodontics, Switzerland). Impressions for study models were taken before (T1) and after (T2) treatment and the study models were scanned into digital form (3Shape, R700 Scanner, Denmark). Measurements were made using the digital models (Planmeca Romexis, Model analyser, Finland). Results During the treatment (T1–T2) the upper inter-canine distance increased by 2.83 mm (P = 0.000) and 2.60 mm (P = 0.000) in the L and H force magnitude groups, respectively. Upper inter-molar width increased by 3.16 mm (P = 0.000) and 2.50 mm (P = 0.000) in the L and H groups, respectively. Maxillary total arch perimeter increased by 6.39 mm (P = 0.001) and 6.68 mm (P = 0.001) in the L and H groups, respectively. In the amount of change over time, T1–T2, in the upper arch measurements, no significant difference was found between the groups. Lower inter-canine width increased by 0.94 mm (P = 0.005) and 1.16 mm (P = 0.000) in the L and H groups, respectively; no difference between the groups. Lower inter-molar distance increased by 2.17 mm (P = 0.000) and 1.11 mm (P = 0.008) in the L and H groups, respectively. At the end of the study, upper and lower inter-molar width was larger in the L group than in the H group (P = 0.039 and P = 0.022, respectively). Conclusion CHG therapy is an effective method for expanding and releasing moderate crowding of the upper dental arch. The lower arch spontaneously follows the upper arch in widening effects, and minor expansion can also be seen on the lower arch. In the L group, larger inter-molar width was achieved on the upper and lower arch; probably due to better adherence to instructions. Light force is recommended for use in CHG therapy.