Effects of Class II division 1 malocclusion treatment with three types of fixed functional appliances

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed at comparing the dentoskeletal changes in patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion, treated with three types of fixed functional appliances. Methods: A sample comprising 95 patients with the same malocclusion, retrospectively selected, and divided into four groups, was used: G1 consisted of 25 patients (mean age 12.77 ± 1.24 years) treated with Jasper Jumper appliance; G2, with 25 patients (mean age 12.58 ± 1.65 years) treated with the Herbst appliance; G3, with 23 patients (mean age 12.37 ± 1.72 years) treated with the Mandibular Protraction Appliance (MPA); and a Control Group (CG) comprised of 22 untreated subjects (mean age 12.66 ± 1.12 years). Intergroup comparison was performed with ANOVA, followed by Tukey test.Results: The Jasper Jumper and the Herbst group showed significantly greater maxillary anterior displacement restriction. The Jasper Jumper demonstrated significantly greater increase in the mandibular plane angle, as compared to the control group. The MPA group demonstrated significantly greater palatal inclination of the maxillary incisors. Vertical development of the maxillary molars was significantly greater in the Herbst group. Conclusions: Despite some intergroup differences in the amount of dentoskeletal changes, the appliances were effective in correcting the main features of Class II malocclusions.

Class II treatment effects with fixed functional appliances: Jasper jumper vs. Forsus fatigue resistant device

“…When comparing treatment and growth changes of the three groups, observed a significant restriction of maxillary growth in the experimental groups compared with the control group. This ‘high‐pull‐headgear’ effect has also been reported in several studies using these appliances 6,13‐20 …”

“…21,34,36,37 The mandibular molars had significantly greater extrusion in the Jasper Jumper group compared to the control group. 4,6,20,30 Both treatment protocols effectively reduced both overjet and overbite and improved molar relationships compared with controls (Table 4). These improvements in the experimental groups regarding dental relationships are due to dental and skeletal changes described above.…”

Influence of Vertical Facial Growth Pattern on Herbst Appliance Effects in Prepubertal Patients: A Retrospective Controlled Study

“…e Herbst device is one of the most common appliances for the treatment of skeletal and dental class II, consisting of a piston and a tube anchored to orthodontic bands (or to splints or to cobalt/chrome fusions), which keeps the jaw in a protracted position 24 hours a day [6] through a bilateral telescopic mechanism. e advantages include the following: high treatment speed (average treatment time 6-8 months), reduced request for patient's compliance, and effectiveness both on the dental and skeletal component [7].…”

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

“…All these modalities are designed to modify the arches by reorienting their position in both sagittal and vertical dimensions to bring about correction of main features of class-II malocclusion. 5 6…”

“…All these modalities are designed to modify the arches by reorienting their position in both sagittal and vertical dimensions to bring about correction of main features of class-II malocclusion. 5,6 AdvanSync2 (Ormco Co., Glendora, California, United States), an FFA developed by Terry Dischinger in 2008, is a recent modification of Herbst appliance. It is a molar-tomolar appliance that connects maxillary and mandibular arches by telescopic rods.…”