Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To determine the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects produced by the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of growing patients with Class II malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using lateral cephalograms of patients consecutively treated with MARA (n  =  40) and AdvanSync (n  =  30) during their skeletal growth spurt as evaluated by the improved cervical vertebral maturation method. A comparison was made with 24 untreated Class II control subjects obtained from the University of Michigan growth study and matched with the experimental groups for skeletal age, sex, and craniofacial morphology. Cephalograms were taken at three time points: (T1) pretreatment, (T2) postfunctional appliance treatment, and (T3) fixed orthodontic treatment completion. Treatment changes were evaluated between the time points using 35 variables. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Scheffe's post hoc test. RESULTS: At the postfunctional appliances' phase (T2-T1), both appliances showed significant increases in total mandibular length, ramus height, and anterior/posterior facial height. The AdvanSync resulted in significant restriction of maxillary growth, 1° more than MARA. This effect continued during the fixed orthodontic treatment stage (T3-T2). The net changes (T3-T1) revealed significant mandibular growth enhancement with MARA (+2.7mm) and significant headgear effect with AdvanSync. Both appliances caused 5° flaring in mandibular incisors as well as significant decreases in overjet and overbite. The treatment time for AdvanSync was 1 year less than MARA. CONCLUSION: The MARA and the AdvanSync resulted in normalization of the Class II malocclusion. The AdvanSync showed more headgear effect but less mandibular length enhancement than MARA did. Both appliances showed similar dentoalveolar changes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this research were to assess skeletal and dental changes in patients with Class II malocclusion treated with the edgewise crowned Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition and to measure the stability of treatment after a second phase of fixed appliance therapy. METHODS: Twenty-two patients (ages, 8.4 ± 1.0 years) with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated consecutively with the edgewise crowned Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition were studied. Lateral cephalograms were taken before Herbst treatment, immediately after Herbst treatment, and after a second phase of fixed appliance therapy. The results were compared with a control group of untreated Class II subjects selected from the Bolton-Brush study, matched by age, sex, and craniofacial morphology. A total of 37 sagittal, vertical, and angular cephalometric variables were evaluated. Changes in overjet and molar relationship were calculated. Changes due to growth were subtracted to obtain the net changes due to treatment. The data were analyzed by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the t tests. RESULTS: Overcorrection with the Herbst appliance resulted in an average reduction in overjet of 7.0 mm and a change in molar relationship of 6.6 mm. Several factors contributed to the change in overjet: restraint of the forward movement of the maxilla (0.4 mm), forward movement of the mandible (2.0 mm), backward movement of the maxillary incisors (3.7 mm), and forward movement of the mandibular incisors (0.9 mm). Skeletal changes together with a 3.1-mm backward movement of the maxillary molars and a 1.1-mm forward movement of the mandibular molars contributed to the changes in molar relationship. After the second phase of fixed appliance therapy, the change in overjet was reduced to 2.8 mm. Most of the remaining overjet corrections were contributed by the restraint of maxillary growth (2.8 mm). The mandible moved posteriorly by 1.6 mm, and the mandibular incisors moved forward by 0.2 mm. Change in molar relationship was reduced to 2.2 mm. The maxillary molars moved backward by 0.2 mm, and the mandibular molars moved forward by 0.8 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Overcorrection of Class II malocclusion with the edgewise crowned Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition resulted in a significant reduction in overjet and correction of the molar relationship. A portion of the correction was maintained after a second phase of fixed appliance therapy because of the continuous restraint of maxillary growth and the dentoalveolar adaptations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The crown Herbst appliance was introduced in the late 1980s because of shortcomings of the banded Herbst. In edgewise Herbst treatment, a fixed appliance is used with the crown Herbst to maximize the skeletal effects of treatment. Treatment response to the edgewise Herbst appliance has not been reported in the literature. Our objective was to investigate skeletal and dental changes in patients with Class II malocclusions treated with the edgewise Herbst appliance. METHODS: Fifty-two consecutive patients were treated with the edgewise Herbst appliance; 32 (18 girls, 14 boys) met the criterion of 16 months out of Herbst treatment and were included in the study. Mean treatment time with this appliance was 8.0 +/- 1.8 months. Patients in the mixed dentition received additional treatment with 2 x 4 appliances until proper overbite, overjet, and torque on the incisors and permanent first molars were achieved. Patients in the permanent dentition were treated with full appliances to finalize the occlusion. Cephalometric measurements were taken at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 16 months after removal of the Herbst appliance, and the results were compared with 32 untreated Class II subjects from the Bolton Brush Study, matched for sex, age, and cephalometric dentofacial morphology. Data were analyzed with ANOVA, Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests, and 2-tailed t tests. RESULTS: After 8 months of Herbst treatment, incisal relationship was overcorrected to an end-to-end incisal relationship and improved 8.4 mm, compared with the control group. The maxilla moved backward 1.4 mm at Point A, and the mandible moved forward 1.7 mm. The maxillary incisors moved lingually 1.7 mm, and the mandibular incisors were proclined 3.6 mm. The molars were corrected to a Class III relationship with a change of 7.2 mm compared with the control group. The mandible moved downward and forward. However, the condyle showed only 0.2 mm forward movement in the fossa. Sixteen months after appliance removal, the molars had relapsed into a Class I relationship, for a net change of 2.4 mm compared with the control group. Net overjet gain was 2.7 mm. Net restraint of maxillary growth was 1.3 mm, and net forward movement of the mandible was 1.0 mm. The maxillary incisors had no net movement, and the mandibular incisors had a net forward movement of 0.3 mm. Overall, skeletal change contributed 85% of the net overjet correction. CONCLUSIONS: Class II treatment with the edgewise Herbst appliance is accompanied by both skeletal and dental changes. The changes are stable, with significant skeletal differences remaining 16 months after appliance removal. The forward and downward movement of the mandible with minimal changes in the position of the condyles in the fossae suggests a combination of condylar growth and remodeling of the glenoid fossa with treatment.

Asunto(s)