Skeletal effects of bite jumping therapy on the mandible – removable vs. fixed functional appliances

Abstract

The immediate effects of bite jumping functional appliances on the mandibular growth enhancement are convincing during actual treatment. This extra gain of growth might be sustainable during the short-term and long-term post-treatment period.

Treatment of Anterior Open Bite with the Bimler Functional Appliance: Report of Three Cases

“…We hypothesize that this accounts for the successful results and the stability over a long period. This clinical case report agrees with those studies asserting that different features in functional appliances may lead to different results, as well as may influence the efficacy and longterm stability of the treatment [15,[34][35][36]. Future studies evaluating the efficacy of functional appliances should consider the differences in appliances and do not generalize to all of them the results from another appliance.…”

Treatment effects of R-appliance and Anterior Inclined Bite Plate in Class II, Division I malocclusion

“…Different removable functional appliances have been used in growing patients to treat this malocclusion 5,6,8,19,28,30 . Several studies have described positive effects with various functional appliances and have focused on their effects on skeletal and dental structures 1,2,4,11,15,16,17,18,23,25 . However, functional appliances restrict the growth of the maxilla 3,10,14,21,22,26,27 and cause labial tipping of lower incisors 3,20,29 .…”

Sagittal Skeletal and Occlusal Changes of Class II, Division 1 Postadolescent Cases in the Herbst and Activator Therapy

“…Also, conclusion of Von Bremen et al, (2009) research was: Herbst treatment can be considered equally efficient in adolescent and in adult Class II, division 1 subjects. Sagittal skeletal changes in Herbst treatment were reported by many authors (Pancherz, 1981(Pancherz, , 1982(Pancherz, , 1989(Pancherz, , 1991(Pancherz, , 1994(Pancherz, , 1997, 2000, 2008Pancherz et al, 1989;Pancherz & Fischer, 2003;Ruf & Pancherz, 1996, 2000Ruf et al, 2001;White, 1994;Paulsen, 1997;Shen & Hagg, 2005;Smith, 1998Smith, , 2000Graber et al, 1997;Windmiller, 1993;Weschler & Pancherz, 2005;Baltromejus et al, 2002;Dischinger, 1995Dischinger, , 1998Du et al, 2002;Hansen et al, 1997;Hanks, 2003;Howe & McNamara, 1983;McNamara et al, 1990;Siara-Olds et al 2010). These changes mainly relate to a more anterior position of the mandible as a result of mandibular growth stimulation and adaptation combined with TMJ remodelation.…”

“…In addition, activation forces on the lower jaw and the anchorage incorporating the lower first molars can lead to mesial bodily movement of of these teeth. The strong activation forces on the mandible and the movement of the entire lower dental arch mesially particularly are reflected on the lower front teeth (Allen-Noble, 2003;Baltromejus et al, 2002;Dischinger, 1995Dischinger, , 1998Du et al, 2002;Hansen et al, 1997;Hanks, 2003;Howe, 1982;McNamara et al, 1990;Pancherz, 1981Pancherz, , 1982Pancherz, , 1989Pancherz, , 1991Pancherz, , 1994Pancherz, , 1997, 2000, 2008Pancherz et al, 1989;Pancherz & Fischer, 2003;Ruf & Pancherz, 1996, 2000Ruf et al, 2001;White, 1994;Schavioni et al, 1992;Shen & Hagg, 2005;Smith, 1998Smith, , 2000Valant & Sinclair, 1989;Graber et al, 1997;Windmiller, 1993;Weschler & Pancherz, 2005). In essence, the entire lower arch moved mesially, excluding skeletal movements.…”