Effect of Bionator and Farmand Appliance on the Treatment of Mandibular Deficiency in Prepubertal Stage

Abstract

Objective: The present study aimed to compare dentoskeletal changes in mandibular-deficient patients treated with Bionator and Farmand appliances.Methods: This study included 54 subjects treated for class II division I malocclusion. All subjects fulfilled the following criteria: ANB>5°, SNB<77°, and overjet >5 mm. The Bionator group consisted of 27 patients (15 girls, 12 boys) with the mean age of 11 (SD 1) years and the Farmand group consisted of 27 patients (17 girls, 10 boys) with the mean age of 11.1 (SD 1.4) years. Statistical analyses were performed using t-test, paired t-test, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney test. Results:In the Farmand group, SNB significantly increased from 74.3° (SD 1.7) to 77.6° (SD 2.3) and ANB decreased by 3.2° (SD 1.7) (p<0.001). In the Bionator group, SNB significantly increased from 75.5° (SD 0.9) to 79° (SD 0.9), and ANB decreased by 3.3° (SD 1.3) (p<0.001). The increase in IMPA showed that the lower incisors were significantly tipped using both appliances. T-test did not show any significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion:Despite the different designs of the appliances, both were successful in the treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion in mandibular-deficient patients.

Dentoskeletal effects of class II malocclusion treatment with the modified Twin Block appliance

“…Class II malocclusion is considered as one of the most prevalent craniofacial deformities. The efficiency of mechanotherapies and the addressed treatments time in this group of malocclusions are controversial topics (1) since skeletal class II malocclusion may be the result of sagittal mandibular deficiency, maxillary excess or a combination of these two (2,3).…”

“…Functional orthopedic appliances which are the acceptable growth modification mechanotherapies in skeletal class II malocclusions may vary depending on their affected areas (2). In general it has been accepted that tissue-born appliances cause less dental compensation when compared with tooth-born appliances (2). Among tooth-born appliances, Twin Block is one of the most applied ones (4,5).…”

Patients’ and Parents’ Perception of Functional Appliances: A Survey Study

“…Thus, various functional appliances have been developed targeting this effect. Fixed functional appliances such as fixed rigid (Herbst, FMA, MARA), fixed flexible (Jasper Jumper), and fixed hybrid appliances (FRD) require much less patient cooperation compared to their removable forms (2)(3)(4)(5)(6). These appliances have advantages and disadvantages regarding oral hygiene, soft tissue irritations, and limitations of mandibular movements (7).…”

Cambios cefalométricos producidos por Pistas Planas y Bionator en la clase II división 1

“…Los aparatos funcionales se confeccionaron siguiendo los criterios descritos por el Doctor Wilhelm Balters y el Doctor Pedro Planas y para la elaboración del Bionator 18 del tipo clase II y las Pistas (19) para clase II respectivamente con una mordida de construcción de parafina en un articulador, de acuerdo con la posición de oclusión de resalte funcional de los dientes anteriores. Una vez confeccionados e instalados los aparatos funcionales, el primer control se realizó a la semana, para detectar molestias y verificar la adaptación.…”