Functional determinants of craniofacial size and shape

McNamara, James A.

doi:10.1093/ejo/2.3.131

Cited by 90 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hansen et al (1990) pointed out that the condyle position seems to be unaffected by treatment, even if the mandible is displaced in an anterior-inferior direction at the start of therapy. The normal condyle position seen at follow-up 7.5 years after Herbst treatment was probably achieved by increased condylar growth during treatment andlor remodelling of the articular fossa, as described by Wieslander (1984) and Pancherz (1979Pancherz ( , 1982, and in monkey studies by Stockli and Willert (1971), McNamara (1980McNamara ( , 1987 and Woodside et al (1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Morphological changes of the TMJ condyles of 100 patients treated with the Herbst appliance in the period of puberty to adulthood: A long-term radiographic study

Paulsen

1997

The European Journal of Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY One hundred consecutive patients were treated with the Herbst appliance in the period of puberty to adulthood. The orthopaedic effects on the morphology of the condyles were described from orthopantomographic and transpharyngeal radiographs. The orthopaedic treatment effect was, in most cases, visible as a change in morphology of the condyle, a double contour in the distocranial part of the condyle and sometimes also at the distal surface of the ramus. In patients at the peak of puberty, the double contour was distinct for a short time. In patients in late puberty, the double contour could be seen several months after treatment. At adulthood, males showed, in most cases, double contours, while females showed in most cases nearly unchanged condyles. When double contours were seen, these persisted for a few months to several years after Herbst treatment. The newly formed bone was stable and no TMJ problems were observed. The change in morphology and the double contour of the condyle can be interpreted as bone modelling. The newly formed bone on the posterior part of the condyle can be explained as a response to hypertropic chondrocytes, and that on the posterior part of the ramus as a response of resting osteoblasts to mechanically induced changes in the condyle (adaptive bone growth). In two cases, remodelling resorption was found in the anterior part of the condyle after Herbst treatment, again as a sign of adaptation to changed mechanical influence. In both cases, later refilling with bone was registered during the remodelling process. The biomechanical effect of Herbst treatment on the mandible is also analogous with an impeded matrix rotation combined with relocation of the mandible.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Morphological changes of the TMJ condyles of 100 patients treated with the Herbst appliance in the period of puberty to adulthood: A long-term radiographic study

Paulsen

1997

The European Journal of Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been shown in histologic studies with laboratory animals that when the mandible is brought forward there is an increase in cellular activity at the condylar head as well as an increase in mandibular length. [7][8][9][10] Numerous studies have shown condylar and glenoid fossa remodeling following the use of various types of functional appliances. Questions that still remain are: (1) Are these findings substantiated with clinical research in humans; (2) Is the growth of the mandible different with functional treatment than that of similar controls; and (3) Is this treatment stable over the long-term?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Dentoskeletal Changes with the Bionator, Herbst, Twin Block, and MARA Functional Appliances

Siara-Olds¹,

Pangrazio-Kulbersh²,

Berger³

et al. 2010

The Angle Orthodontist

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine if the long-term dentoskeletal changes in patients treated with tooth-borne functional appliances were comparable to each other and to matched controls. Materials and Methods: The experimental sample consisted of 80 consecutively treated patients who were equally divided into Bionator, Herbst, Twin Block, and mandibular anterior repositioning appliance (MARA) groups. The control group comprised 21 children with untreated skeletal Class II malocclusions. Lateral cephalograms were taken for the treated group at T 1 (initial records), T 2 (completion of functional therapy), and T 3 (completion of fixed appliance therapy). A repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the differences between and within groups. If ANOVA results were significant, Tukey-Kramer tests were used to determine where the significant differences occurred. (7) Over the long-term, there were no significant soft tissue changes among treated and untreated subjects. Conclusions: No significant dentoskeletal differences were observed long-term, among the various treatment groups and matched controls. (Angle Orthod 2010;80:18-29.)

show abstract

“…Further studies by McNamara et al [27][28][29] in Macaque monkeys incorporating tantalum implants have identified similar changes and highlighted the relevance of treatment timing of the treatment, based on reported changes in the electromyographic (EMG) activity in the lateral pterygoid muscles. Observation was made of the length of time required to produce additional bone rather than cartilage, with the latter being a less permanent structure.…”

Section: Experiments On Primatesmentioning

confidence: 92%