Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear

Keeling, Stephen D.; Wheeler, Timothy T.; King, Gregory J.; Garvan, Cynthia Wilson; Cohen, David; Cabassa, Salvatore; McGorray, Susan P.; Taylor, Marie G.

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70275-6

Cited by 258 publications

(175 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies revealed that the treated groups exhibited significant improvement in their maxillomandibular relationship with the greatest maxillary effects being linked to the headgears, and mandibular effects linked to the functional appliances. 8,14,22,25,30 When compared with the other groups at the end of treatment, the control group showed no clinical differences (PAR index). It was also observed that the total treatment time was greater in the groups that experienced the first phase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…9 In attempting to assess the efficacy of these two Class II treatment protocols, major studies were conducted with large clinical samples focusing on comparative results yielded by two-phase and one-phase orthodontic treatment. 8,14,22,25,30 Overall, these studies compared three groups-two treated groups and one control group-to assess the effect of treatment and growth. The treatment groups underwent a first phase with an extraoral appliance (high pull, Kloehn or Thurow) and a functional appliance (Fränkel, Bionator or plateau retainer) followed by a second phase with fixed orthodontics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of the orthodontic knowledge demonstrated by dental school undergraduates: recognizing the key features of Angle Class II, Division 1 malocclusion

Canavarro

Miguel

Quintão

et al. 2012

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the orthodontic knowledge demonstrated by dental school undergraduates: recognizing the key features of Angle Class II, Division 1 malocclusion

Canavarro

Miguel

Quintão

et al. 2012

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…All children in these age cohorts were screened during the late deciduous dentition period, and those diagnosed as needing treatment received a full clinical examination at the onset of the mixed dentition period. 10 Children were included in the treatment group if they showed one or more of the following occlusal characteristics: (1) distal step (Ն1 mm), (2) Class II canine relationship (Ն1 mm), (3) excess overbite (Ͼ3 mm and lack of tooth-to-tooth contact between the incisors), (4) deep bite (Ͼ3 mm with gingival contact of the incisors), (5) crowding, (6) anterior crossbite, and (7) scissors bite (buccal crossbite). The treatment group was treated using the eruption guidance appliance only ( Figure 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This seems to be in line with the recent findings suggesting that only minor benefits can be obtained by early treatment in Class II patients. [3][4][5][6] However, other studies have reported considerably better results after an early intervention. [7][8][9] A recent clinical trial investigated the occlusal effects of the eruption guidance appliance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dentofacial Changes after Orthodontic Intervention with Eruption Guidance Appliance in the Early Mixed Dentition

Keski-Nisula

Salo

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate skeletal and dentoalveolar changes induced by the eruption guidance appliance in the early mixed dentition. Materials and Methods: Pre-and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs of 115 consecutively treated children, 62 boys and 53 girls, were compared with those obtained from a control group of 104 children, 52 boys and 52 girls. Pretreatment radiographs were taken at the deciduousmixed dentition interphase (T1) and after full eruption of all permanent incisors and first molars (T2). The mean age of the children in both groups was 5.1 years at T1 and 8.4 years at T2. Results: A significant difference between the groups at T2 was found in the mandibular length, midfacial length, and maxillomandibular differential. The increase in mandibular length was 11.1 mm in the treatment group and 7.2 mm in the control group. No differences were found in measurements of maxillary position or size. There was a significant shift toward a Class I relationship in the treatment group. Labial tipping and linear protrusion of the mandibular incisors was evident in the treatment group at T2. There was no effect on the inclination or position of the maxillary incisors. Conclusions: Occlusal correction was achieved mainly through changes in the dentoalveolar region of the mandible. In addition, the appliance enhanced condylar growth resulting in a clinically significant increase in mandibular length. No effect was observed on maxillary position, maxillary size, inclination or protrusion of the maxillary incisors, or facial height.

show abstract

“…[2][3][4][5][6][7] In an early study reporting the outcome of treatment for 264 consecutively treated patients, 111 of whom were classified as Class II, Division 1, Berg 8 highlighted the fact that not all orthodontic treatment is equally successful. In his sample, close to 50% of the patients were judged to have less than satisfactory treatment outcomes, with an approximately 30% probability of failure to eliminate an increased overjet (OJ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical versus orthodontic correction for class II patients: age and severity in treatment planning and treatment outcome

Tulloch

Lenz

Phillips

1999

Seminars in Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment options for Class II malocclusion include orthognathic surgery. Treatment choices are particularly difficult for young patients because of the uncertainty regarding future growth. Surgical treatment has generally been considered necessary for older patients with more severe Class II problems. The treatment records of more than 500 patients with Class II malocclusion were reviewed. Patients were grouped according to their initial treatment plan (surgery or orthodontics) and treatment outcome (overjet [OJ] reduced to <4 mm or not). Discriminant function analyses using data from the patient's pretreatment cephalogram were used to determine whether age, in combination with malocclusion severity, could predict the choice of treatment, and whether a simple set of pretreatment variables could predict the success or failure of OJ reduction. The derived equations were tested in a similar group of growing Class II children. Although the data showed clinicians use patient's age in determining treatment choice, age did not seem to be associated with treatment outcome. The majority of the variability that determined the success or failure of OJ reduction was not explained by patient's age or malocclusion severity. These findings suggest other factors, including psychosocial variables, need to be explored if we are to gain a better understanding of why treatments succeed or fail.

show abstract

Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear

Cited by 258 publications

References 8 publications

Assessment of the orthodontic knowledge demonstrated by dental school undergraduates: recognizing the key features of Angle Class II, Division 1 malocclusion

Assessment of the orthodontic knowledge demonstrated by dental school undergraduates: recognizing the key features of Angle Class II, Division 1 malocclusion

Dentofacial Changes after Orthodontic Intervention with Eruption Guidance Appliance in the Early Mixed Dentition

Surgical versus orthodontic correction for class II patients: age and severity in treatment planning and treatment outcome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About