Journals / Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4

CHANGES IN THE DENTOFACIAL MORPHOLOGY BETWEEN CLASS II PATIENTS TREATED WITH ONE OF THE TWO TREATMENT MODALITIES: FUNCTIONAL APPLIANCE AND HEADGEAR. A RETROSPECTIVE CEPHALOMETRIC STUDY

Pages
500–506
Publication Date
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, this group experienced more prominent and positive effects on soft tissue facial profile.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To compare changes in dentofacial morphology between Angle class II patients treated with one of two treatment modalities: functional appliance and headgear.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: Activator group comprised 14 Class II patients (mean age, 13.54 years), headgear (HG) group 15 Class II patients (mean age, 11.56 years) and control group 14 Class I subjects (mean age, 11.57 years).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, this group experienced more prominent and positive effects on soft tissue facial profile.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: To compare changes in dentofacial morphology between Angle class II patients treated with one of two treatment modalities: functional appliance and headgear. Material and Methods: Activator group comprised 14 Class II patients (mean age, 13.54 years), headgear (HG) group 15 Class II patients (mean age, 11.56 years) and control group 14 Class I subjects (mean age, 11.57 years). Pre-treatment/ baseline (T1) and post-treatment/observation (T2) lateral cephalograms were retrospectively analyzed using a standard cephalometric analysis. Data were analyzed by paired t test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD tests. Results: A point moved forward 0.50 and 0.51 mm in activator and control groups, but moved backward 0.37 mm in HG group, with no significant difference between groups. B point moved forward 3.32, 1.27 and 0.96 mm in activator, HG and control groups respectively, that significantly greater in activator group compared to other groups (p< .01). U1-SN angle decreased (7.39 degree) and IMPA increased (5.14 degree) significantly activator group, whereas U1-SN angle and IMPA showed small and insignificant changes (less than one degree) in HG and control groups. No significant difference observed between the groups in regard to changes in upper lip position, nasolabial angle, mandibular plane angle and mandibular body length. Favorable soft tissue facial profile changes were observed in the groups, but the changes are prominent in activator group (p< .05). Conclusion: HG group showed small and insignificant dentofacial changes. Functional appliance group showed favorable skeletal but unfavorable dentoalveolar changes. However, this group experienced more prominent and positive effects on soft tissue facial profile.

🔖

Cite This Article

KILIÇ, N., ERDEM, A., TUNÇ, S. (2022). CHANGES IN THE DENTOFACIAL MORPHOLOGY BETWEEN CLASS II PATIENTS TREATED WITH ONE OF THE TWO TREATMENT MODALITIES: FUNCTIONAL APPLIANCE AND HEADGEAR. A RETROSPECTIVE CEPHALOMETRIC STUDY. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4, 500–506. https://ajindex.com/articles/451525

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Keeling SD, Wheeler TT, King GJ, Garvan CW, Cohen DA, Cabassa S, McGorray SP, Taylor MG Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998; 113: 40-50
  2. Tulloch JF, Phillips C, Koch G, Proffit WR The effect of early intervention on skeletal pattern in Class II malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 1997; 111:391-400
  3. Haralabakis NB, Halazonetis DJ, Sifakakis IB Activator versus cervical headgear: superimpositional cephalometric comparison. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123: 296-305
  4. Maetevorakul S, Viteporn S. Factors Influencing Soft Tissue Profile Changes Following Orthodontic Treatment in Patients With Class II Division 1 Malocclusion. Prog Orthod 2016; 17:13
  5. Heino T, Kokko H, Vuollo V, Pirttiniemi P. Effect of cervical headgear on dental arch area, shape and interarch dimensions: A randomized study. 2020; J Orofac Orthop doi: 10.1007/s00056-020-00264- 0
  6. Falcão ICMCF, Valarelli FP, Canuto LFG, Oliveira RC, de Oliveira RCG, Cançado RH, Freitas KMS (2021). Soft tissue profile changes in Angle class II patients treated with Twin Force or intermaxillary elastics-a comparison. J Orofac Orthop 82:71-81
  7. Kochar GD, Londhe SM, Shivpuri A, Chopra SS, Mitra R, Verma M. Management of skeletal class II malocclusion using bimaxillary skeletal anchorage 1. Keeling SD, Wheeler TT, King GJ, Garvan CW, Cohen DA, Cabassa S, McGorray SP, Taylor MG Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998; 113: 40-50.