Angle Class II correction with MARA appliance

Chiqueto, Kelly; Henriques, José Fernando Castanha; Barros, Sérgio Estelita; Janson, Guilherme

doi:10.1590/s2176-94512013000100011

Cited by 23 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The meta-analysis showed a 1.16 mm/y increase in the total mandibular length of the MARA group over controls (WMD 5 1.16; 95% CI 5 0.61, 1.72; x 2 test 5 7.32; 5 df; P 5 .20; I 2 5 32%; test for overall effect, Z 5 4.11 and P # .0001) (Figure 1). Sensitivity analysis excluding the three lowquality studies 5,6,19 showed comparable findings (WMD 5 1.12; 95% CI 5 0.60, 1.63) ( Table 5).…”

Section: Short-term Effects Of Maramentioning

confidence: 69%

“…18 Therefore, only seven retrospective clinical controlled studies met the inclusion criteria. 5,6,8,9,[19][20][21] The participants were growing subjects with Class II division 1 malocclusion in all studies except for one in which the type of Class II malocclusion was not specified. 6 The age ranges were 10.11-12.3 years for the MARA subjects (N 5 180) and 11.63-11.9 years for the control subjects (N 5 126).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In several studies, the sample was not randomly selected or the random selection method was unclear. Only one study 19 used a concurrent untreated control group; the rest used historical controls. Historical controls might not be similar to the MARA group in the growth pattern.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historical controls might not be similar to the MARA group in the growth pattern. Although five studies 5,8,9,20,21 matched the MARA and control subjects by the cervical vertebral maturational age, two studies 6,19 used only chronological age and dentoskeletal characteristics to match the samples. All but three of the studies reported similar baseline skeletal features among the MARA and the control samples.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies 5,6,8,9,19,21 evaluated this outcome using the cephalometric variable Co-Gn. The meta-analysis showed a 1.16 mm/y increase in the total mandibular length of the MARA group over controls (WMD 5 1.16; 95% CI 5 0.61, 1.72; x 2 test 5 7.32; 5 df; P 5 .20; I 2 5 32%; test for overall effect, Z 5 4.11 and P # .0001) (Figure 1).…”

Section: Short-term Effects Of Maramentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Meta-analysis on the mandibular dimensions effects of the MARA appliance in patients with Class II malocclusions

Al-Jewair

2014

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate the short-and long-term effects of the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance (MARA) on mandibular dimensions in patients with Class II malocclusion and to assess the stability of the MARA results. Materials and Methods: Multiple electronic databases were searched for articles published in any language until March 2014. A manual search was also performed of reference lists of retrieved articles. The primary outcomes were the short-and long-term effects of the MARA appliance on mandible dimensions. The secondary outcome was postretention stability. Outcome measures were total mandibular unit length, corpus length, and ramus height. Two reviewers examined all articles independently and assessed their methodologic quality. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. The Cochrane test and the I 2 statistic were used to assess heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were performed and publication bias was evaluated. Results: Seven retrospective clinical controlled studies that compared MARA with controls were included. Three of the studies were medium quality; the rest were low quality. Meta-analysis of the short-term effects revealed a significant increase in total mandibular unit length (1.16 mm/y) and ramus height (1.58 mm/y) with MARA and a nonsignificant increase in corpus length (0.21 mm/y). Analyses of the long-term effects showed a statistically significant advantage of MARA over controls for all three variables, but the effect sizes were small. More high-quality studies are warranted. Conclusions: The MARA appliance produced statistically significant mandibular growth enhancement in the short-and long-term. These findings, however, may not be clinically significant. (Angle Orthod. 2015;85:706-714.)

show abstract

Section: Short-term Effects Of Maramentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Short-term Effects Of Maramentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Meta-analysis on the mandibular dimensions effects of the MARA appliance in patients with Class II malocclusions

Al-Jewair

2014

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents

Batista

Thiruvenkatachari

Harrison

et al. 2018

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Impact of initial lip competence on the outcome of class II functional appliances therapy

Sambale,

Jablonski-Momeni,

Korbmacher-Steiner

2024

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this prospective clinical study was to evaluate the impact of initial lip position on class II functional appliance therapy. Materials and methods In total, 34 class II division 1 patients (23 females, 19 males; mean age 12.4 ± 0.9 years) that met the inclusion criteria (> ½ class II molar relationship, overjet > 6 mm, ANB > 4°, neutral or horizontal growth pattern, cervical vertebral maturation stage (CVMS) II – III, mean wear-time > 10 h/day) were consecutively divided into two groups (lip incompetence (LI); lip competence (LC)). All patients were treated with the Sander bite jumping appliance (BJA). Wear time was microelectronically measured. Lateral cephalograms were taken at the beginning (T0) and after 1 year of treatment (T1). An untreated class II group served as a control (CG). Inter-group comparisons were determined with Mann–Whitney U tests for independent samples. Results Significant skeletal treatment effects were found in both treated groups when compared to the CG with significantly more pronounced mandibular skeletal effects in the LI than in the LC group (mandibular base length p < 0.001, composite mandibular base length p < 0.001, condylar head growth p = 0.002, co-pg p < 0.00, go-pg p = 0.003, reduction of the ANB angle p = 0.009, and Wits appraisal p < 0.001). Conclusion The more pronounced mandibular effects in the LI group were composed of the functional orthopedic effect plus harmonization of the lip competence. Clinical relevance Functional harmonization of lip incompetence with BJA enhances mandibular growth stimulation. Lip incompetence seems to impede mandibular growth and its harmonization seems to be a preventive approach.

show abstract

Angle Class II correction with MARA appliance

Abstract: It was concluded that the MARA appliance proved effective in correcting Angle's Class II, division 1 malocclusion while inducing skeletal changes and particularly dental changes.

Cited by 23 publications

References 26 publications

Meta-analysis on the mandibular dimensions effects of the MARA appliance in patients with Class II malocclusions

Meta-analysis on the mandibular dimensions effects of the MARA appliance in patients with Class II malocclusions

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents

Impact of initial lip competence on the outcome of class II functional appliances therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About