A comparison of the efficacy of fixed versus removable functional appliances in children with Class II malocclusion: A systematic review

Pacha, Moaiyad Moussa; Fleming, Padhraig S.

doi:10.1093/ejo/cjv086

Cited by 50 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For this reason, several mandibular anterior repositioning appliances are available in the market (Bionator, Herbst, Forsus, Twin-Force, etc.). 6,7,8 The Forsus FRD appliance is a semi-rigid device that provides greater flexibility in mandibular positioning, thus making it better accepted by patients. The dentoalveolar effects produced by the therapy using Forsus promote sagittal correction of Class II malocclusion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 Several studies in the literature demonstrate the efficacy of the Forsus appliance and the protocol for correction of Class II malocclusion by extraction. 8,9,10,11 However, orthodontic planning should achieve dental corrections by considering the soft tissue responses not only in terms of the cephalometric numerical values, but especially the impact on the facial profile. Therefore, this study analyzed the facial pleasantness of patients treated with Forsus and with the extraction of maxillary premolars, according to orthodontists and lay individuals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Esthetic perception of facial profile changes after extraction and nonextraction Class II treatment

Rocha

Casteluci

Ferreira³

et al. 2020

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This retrospective study evaluated facial profile pleasantness determined by two protocols of Class II treatment. The sample comprised facial profile silhouettes obtained retrospectively from the pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) cephalograms of 60 patients (42 males and 18 females) divided into two groups. One group of 30 patients (mean age of 12.84 years) was treated with the extraction of maxillary first premolars (mean treatment time of 2.7 years), and the other group of 30 patients (mean age of 12.81 years) was treated with a mandibular advancement appliance (Forsus) (mean treatment time of 2.49 years). The facial profile silhouettes (T1 and T2) were randomly distributed in an album containing one patient per sheet. The examiners consisted of 60 orthodontists and 60 lay individuals, who analyzed the profiles in regard to facial pleasantness, using the Likert scale. A comparison between stages T1 and T2 of the two treatment protocols and between the examiners was performed by mixed-design analysis of variance at a significance level of 5%. The results demonstrated a significant difference between T1 and T2 (greater scores for T2 compared to T1), and between lay individuals and orthodontists (orthodontists assigned higher scores), but with no significant difference between the treatment protocols. Both protocols produced positive effects on the facial profile esthetics, from the standpoint of lay individuals and orthodontists.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Esthetic perception of facial profile changes after extraction and nonextraction Class II treatment

Rocha

Casteluci

Ferreira³

et al. 2020

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both removable functional appliances and headgear therapy depend on the cooperation of the patients. However, in contrast to the theory, there would not be a clear cut between clinical indications of these two broad clinical interventions of class II malocclusions [23]. Among the different removable appliances, Twin-block is used more often [18], which can efficiently promote mandibular growth, restrict further forward growth of the maxilla, and improve skeletal relationships in growing skeletal class II individuals with mandibular retrusion [24,25].…”

Section: Early Management In the Mixed Dentitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The key differences between removable and fixed appliances are different working hours (intermittent vs. continuous), and also optimal treatment timing (before puberty growth vs. at or after puberty spurt) and direction of further growth [30]. To date, there are a limited number of studies evaluating clinical effectiveness and patient's experience and perceptions of these fixed functional appliances [23]. As it is stated in the literature, fixed functional treatment is effective when performed during the pubertal growth phase, and very little data are available on postpubertal patients [31].…”

Section: Early Management In the Mixed Dentitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in Management of Class II Malocclusions

Tehranchi¹,

Behnia²,

Younessian³

et al. 2016

A Textbook of Advanced Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Volume 3

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although mandibular advancement by bilateral sagittal split osteotomy seems to be a good mandibular treatment option to treat skeletal class II malocclusion, it is less stable than setback; relapse depends on a wide range of patient-centered and surgeoncentered factors relating to the skill and experience of the surgeon, proper seating of the condyles, the exact amount of mandibular advancement, the tension of the muscles and soft tissues, the mandibular plane angle, and the patient's age. In fact, patients with low and high mandibular plane angles have increased vertical and horizontal relapses, respectively. Nonsurgical management of class II malocclusion may be an option by which to effectively manage such cases. The present chapter discusses different treatment modalities for clinical management of class II malocclusion in growing and non-growing patients.

show abstract

“…1 In growing patients, functional devices for man-dibular advancement (MA) are used in the management of class II malocclusion and have shown to effectively reduce growth discrepancies between the maxilla and mandible. 2 These devices transfer tensions to the mandibular condyle, modulating cartilage growth and bone formation. 3 The effects are increased cell proliferation, 4 growth factor expression, and matrix deposition, [5][6][7] besides apoptosis regulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photobiomodulation and Mandibular Advancement Modulates Cartilage Thickness and Matrix Deposition in the Mandibular Condyle

Franco

Galdino

Capeletti

et al. 2020

Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine, and Laser Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We evaluated the effects of photobiomodulation (PBM), mandibular advancement (MA), and the combination of both treatments (PBM+MA) on condylar growth, by the analysis of cartilage and bone formation, fibrillar collagen deposition, proteoglycan content, cell proliferation, and clastic cell index (CCI). Methods: Forty male Wistar rats were randomly assigned to CONTROL, PBM, positive control-MA, and PBM+MA groups. The appliance was worn 10 h/day. Laser was irradiated bilaterally on mandibular condyles in 8 alternate days (1 irradiation point per condyle) using the following parameters: 780 nm, 10 J/cm 2 , 40 mW, 1 W/cm 2 , 10 sec/point, 0.4 J/point, and cumulative dose per point: 3.2 J. PBM+MA received both treatments simultaneously. After 15 days, the animals were euthanized and the condyles dissected and embedded in paraffin. Histological sections from the intermediate portion of the condyle were used for morphometric analysis. The relative frequency (%) of fibrillar collagens was determined in sections stained with picrosirius red-hematoxylin under polarized light or Gömöri's method for reticular fibers. Proteoglycan content was evaluated by computerized photocolorimetric analysis. CCI was determined by tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP), and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) was detected by immunohistochemistry. Results: PBM and MA influenced condylar cartilage thickeness and matrix deposition, but none of the treatments affected significantly the area of the condyle. CCI were not influenced by the treatments, but clastic cells distribution was influenced by MA and PBM+MA treatments. There was no significant difference in proliferating cells among the groups. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that PBM and MA stimulates matrix deposition and cartilage thickening in the mandibular condyle, but was not able to demonstrate a synergistic effect between the treatments. Additional studies should be conducted to evaluate the possible synergistic effect between PBM and MA.

show abstract

A comparison of the efficacy of fixed versus removable functional appliances in children with Class II malocclusion: A systematic review

Cited by 50 publications

References 35 publications

Esthetic perception of facial profile changes after extraction and nonextraction Class II treatment

Esthetic perception of facial profile changes after extraction and nonextraction Class II treatment

Advances in Management of Class II Malocclusions

Photobiomodulation and Mandibular Advancement Modulates Cartilage Thickness and Matrix Deposition in the Mandibular Condyle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About