Evaluation of Dentoskeletal Changes Accompanying the Treatment of Class II Malocclusion by Advansync Appliance versus Intermaxillary Coil Spring Mechanics

Abstract

Objectives:The present study was designed to determine and compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue effects produced by the Advansync functional appliance and intermaxillary NiTi coil springs in the treatment of growing patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion. Subjects and methods: A sample of 19 growing patients, as evaluated by hand wrist radiographs, with age range 12-15 years was divided into two groups. Group I patients were treated with the Advansync appliance (n=10) and Group II patients were treated using intermaxillary NiTi coil springs (n=9). The study was conducted using lateral cephalograms taken before appliance insertion and immediately after appliance removal. Treatment changes were evaluated for each group and compared between both groups. Data were analyzed using Paired sample t-test for each group and Independent t-test for comparing groups together. Results: The use of Advansync and fixed appliances (Group I) resulted in significant decrease in SNA and ANB angles (p≤0.001). Dental changes included retroclination of maxillary teeth, proclination and intrusion of mandibular teeth as well as mesialization of mandibular molars (p≤0.001). On the other hand, SNA and ANB showed non-significant changes for patients treated with intermaxillary NiTi coil springs (Group II) (p≥0.05). While dental changes included retroclination of maxillary teeth, proclination and intrusion of mandibular teeth as well as mesialization of mandibular molars (p≤0.001) which were greater in Group II than Group I. The effects of both treatment modalities showed significant increases in total mandibular length and anterior facial height (p≤0.01 and p≤0.05) with no significant difference between both groups. Lower lip to PtV was the Codex : 44/1810 azhardentj@azhar.edu.eg only soft tissue measurement with significant changes (p≤0.05) for each group and was non-significant when the two groups were compared together. Conclusion: Both treatment modalities were effective in treating Class II division 1 malocclusion. The Advansync appliance produced its effect through maxillary growth restriction and dentoalveolar changes. While the effects of intermaxillary NiTi coil springs were only dentoalveolar, but more than the Advansync appliance.

Comparison of AdvanSync2® and Twin Block Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion With Retrognathic Mandible—An Observational Retrospective Study

“…The increase in Co-Pt A could be due to the normal growth changes during this period of treatment or may also be due to growth of mandibular condyle in an upward and backward direction that can be stimulated by the functional orthopedic treatment. 10, 11, 15 The findings are similar in the AdvanSync2 ® group also. Schaefer et al 16 also compared the Twin Block and the Herbst appliance and did not find any significant differences between the outcomes.…”

“…Jayachandran et al 9 reported minimal maxillary dentoalveolar effects such as decrease in U1-SN (−1.17°) and increase in U1-Aperp (0.20 mm), U6-NF (1.7 mm), and U6-Ptv (1.8 mm). However, El Mofty et al 11 reported a disparity because they found a significant retroclination of maxillary incisors (U1-SN, −5.3°) but no significant changes in maxillary molar position. The maxillary molar extrusion can be either to the distal tipping of the maxillary molar or the extrusion can be attributed to the natural tendency of the teeth to erupt occlusally and the alveolar remodeling occurring during growth.…”

“…To date, few studies in the literature have evaluated the effects of the AdvanSync2 ® appliance. 9–11 Most studies have compared AdvanSync2 ® to other fixed appliances. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the cephalometric skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of a removable appliance (Twin Block) and a fixed functional appliance (AdvanSync2 ® ) since compliance is a major factor which can be supposed to alter and differentiate the treatment outcomes.…”

Dentoskeletal, Soft Tissue and Airway Effects of the Advansync2 in Patients With Class Ii Div 1 Mandibular Retrognathism: A Retrospective Study

“…Post-treatment ANB angle decreased favorably indicating a harmonious relationship of skeletal structures with soft tissues This provided a well-balanced look in the nasomaxillary complex, in accordance with reduction in facial convexity. Our results were in line the with the above-mentioned studies are comparable with a study conducted by Mofty et al,2018 who found signicant improvement in the prole of patients treated with AdvanSync2.Though the effects of the AdvanSync2 appliance are similar to other xed functional appliances (Janson et al2018, Mofty et al,2018 the greatest advantage is the ability to use the appliance from start of treatment without prior preparation of arches. This is benecial in cases with minimal residual growth, where one can utilize the remaining growth potential could be tapped quickly.…”

Therapeutic effectiveness of AdvanSync2 at different stages of skeletal maturity in skeletal Class II malocclusion: A single-blind clinical trial

“…is might have brought an overlap in the ideal age of functional appliance therapy, as many studies showed that the mean increase in mandibular length is between CVMI 3 and 4. [28] is could have attributed to the significant skeletal change seen in Group B.…”