Orthopedic cervical headgear in Class II treatment: case report

Abstract

Early treatment for Class II malocclusion was undertaken with the objective of correcting skeletal disproportion by altering the growth pattern. A case of Class II, Division 1 malocclusion in the mixed dentition was corrected to Class I molar relationship using orthopedic cervical headgear, with nonextraction edgewise therapy. Cephalometric analysis indicated a reduction in the maxillomandibular discrepancy (ANB) correcting the Class II malocclusion to Class I malocclusion. The treatment showed that this was achieved by downward displacement and inhibition of the forward growth of the maxilla and growth of the mandible. There was no downward rotation of the mandible nor maxillary first molar extrusion. There was improvement in the jaw relationship.

Current trends in headgear use for the treatment of Class II malocclusions

“…5,6 It has previously been shown that compliance with headgear use has a significant effect on treatment outcome and duration. [6][7][8] In the orthodontic specialty, there was a rapid increase in the use of headgear through the mid1980s followed by a decline in the routine use of this appliance from 1996 to present. [9][10][11] Interestingly, over the years the headgear treatment modality has been in and out of favor.…”

Comparação dos efeitos cefalométricos promovidos pelos aparelhos extrabucal cervical e Pendulum

“…Os efeitos promovidos pelo aparelho extrabucal cervical apresentam-se amplamente reportados na literatura, com a efetiva distalização dos molares superiores 94,118 associada ao redirecionamento do crescimento maxilar anterior, resultando na sua restrição 31,59,74,82,84,93,111,118,146,166,184,189,193,194 ; a extrusão dos molares superiores 36,47,94,110,118,194 e inferiores 47,94 ;…”

Estudo comparativo do tempo de tratamento de casos com má oclusão de classe II tratados ortodonticamente com extrações de quatro pré-molares e sem extrações

“…A crença de que a melhora no perfil e na estética facial proporcionada pelos aparelhos funcionais é superior àquela advinda do tratamento ortodôntico convencional (com aparelhos fixos) 132 , foi questionada por BARRER; 17,35,52,61,62,88,133,142,143,190,192,196,199 . Contudo, as modificações no complexo côndilo-fossa, favoráveis à correção da má oclusão de Classe II e observadas por VOUDOURIS et al 191,192 45,52,59,78,90,133,191,196,197 .…”