Class II Correction with the Cantilever Bite Jumper

Objective: To compare the changes in incisor inclination between two compliance-free Class II correction protocols for the treatment of mild to moderate Class II malocclusions. Materials and Methods: Among Class II malocclusion patients a total of 38 consecutive patients treated with the Xbow appliance and later with full brackets (XB) were compared to 36 consecutive patients treated with Forsus connected to the archwire while on full brackets (FO). Evaluated cephalometric variables were overjet, overbite, skeletal Class II, lower incisor inclination, and upper incisor inclination. Factors that were analyzed were gender, treatment type, age at start of treatment (T1), and treatment length. Independent t-tests, x 2 , multiple analysis of variance, and Pearson correlations were applied. Results: No differences in incisor inclination between both treatment protocols were identified. At T1 no statistical difference for any cephalometric variable was demonstrated with regard to gender and treatment type. Gender was also not associated with a different treatment time or age at T1. The mean treatment time was 24.2 months for XB and 30.2 months for the FO group (P 5 .037). XB patients averaged 10 fewer months of fixed edgewise appliances compared to FO patients. Neither gender nor treatment type had any influence on the changes of the evaluated dependent variables between T1 and the end of treatment. Lower incisors proclined more the longer the treatment (P 5 .005). Both overjet and upper incisor inclination were affected by age at T1 (P 5 .001 and P 5 .014, respectively).

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incisor inclination changes produced by two compliance-free Class II correction protocols for the treatment of mild to moderate Class II malocclusions

Miller¹,

Tieu

Flores-Mir

2012

“…2 Many different Herbst appliance designs have been reported in the literature. [3][4][5][6][7] Depending on the type of appliance that is used, different complications are more commonly reported. A few studies 2,8-10 have compared complication rates between different Herbst appliance designs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective study of clinical complications during orthodontic treatment with either a removable mandibular acrylic splint Herbst or with a cantilever Herbst

Silva

Gerszewski

Moresca

et al. 2015

Self Cite

On average, approximately 2.5 complications per patient were reported. Most patients had a maximum of three complications during Herbst treatment. Herbst appliance type (RMS or HC) and fixation mode (crowns or Grip Tite bands) did not influence the number of complications. The PMA (without screws) telescopic system seemed to be more reliable (regarding the number of complications) than Dentaurum type 1, regardless of the appliance design (RMS or HC).

“…These appliances promote mandibular protrusion with reciprocal distal forces in the maxillary arch. [3][4][5] Among these appliances, the Twin Force Bite Corrector (TFBC; Ortho Organizers Inc, Carlsbad, Calif) is a hybrid fixed functional appliance that has a plunger system combined with active push coils that deliver a constant force of approximately 210 g. 6,7 Consider that several successful reports of nonextraction Class II treatment are described in the orthodontic literature 3,6,8 using either fixed/removable and intra-or extraoral appliances to promote mandibular protrusion. Currently, a few studies 6,7 have been conducted to assess the dentoskeletal changes of the TFBC appliance, but none of these studies have evaluated the treatment effects of the TFBC appliance compared to a control sample.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective study of dentoskeletal changes in Class II division malocclusion treatment with twin force bite corrector

Guimarães

Henriques

Janson

et al. 2012

Self Cite

Objective: To evaluate the dentoskeletal changes of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Twin Force Bite Corrector (TFBC). Materials and Methods: The sample comprised 86 lateral cephalograms obtained from 43 subjects with Class II division 1 malocclusion; the subjects were divided into two groups. The experimental group comprised 23 patients with a mean initial age of 12.11 years who were treated with the TFBC for a mean period of 2.19 years. The control group included 40 lateral cephalograms from 20 Class II nontreated patients, with an initial mean age of 12.55 years and a mean observation period of 2.19 years. The lateral cephalograms were evaluated before and after orthodontic treatment in group 1 and in the beginning and end of the observation period in group 2. t-Tests were used to compare the initial and final cephalometric characteristics of the groups as well as the amount of change. Results: The experimental group presented greater maxillary growth restriction and mandibular retrusion than the control group, as well as greater maxillomandibular relationship improvement and greater labial tipping of the mandibular incisors. The results also showed a greater decrease in overbite and overjet in the experimental group, and there were no statistically significant differences in the craniofacial growth pattern between groups. Conclusions: The TFBC promotes restriction of anterior maxillary displacement without significant changes in mandibular length and position and improvement of maxillomandibular relationship without changes in facial growth and significant buccal tipping of mandibular incisors. Class II correction with the TFBC occurred primarily as a result of dentoalveolar changes.