Cargando…

Comparison of Activator-Headgear and Twin Block Treatment Approaches in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion

The purpose was to compare the treatment effects of functional appliances activator-headgear (AH) and Twin Block (TB) on skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue structures in class II division 1 malocclusion with normal growth changes in untreated subjects. The sample included 50 subjects (56% females) ag...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Spalj, Stjepan, Mroz Tranesen, Kate, Birkeland, Kari, Katic, Visnja, Pavlic, Andrej, Vandevska-Radunovic, Vaska
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5292161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28203569
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/4861924
_version_ 1782504884098039808
author Spalj, Stjepan
Mroz Tranesen, Kate
Birkeland, Kari
Katic, Visnja
Pavlic, Andrej
Vandevska-Radunovic, Vaska
author_facet Spalj, Stjepan
Mroz Tranesen, Kate
Birkeland, Kari
Katic, Visnja
Pavlic, Andrej
Vandevska-Radunovic, Vaska
author_sort Spalj, Stjepan
collection PubMed
description The purpose was to compare the treatment effects of functional appliances activator-headgear (AH) and Twin Block (TB) on skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue structures in class II division 1 malocclusion with normal growth changes in untreated subjects. The sample included 50 subjects (56% females) aged 8–13 years with class II division 1 malocclusion treated with either AH (n = 25) or TB (n = 25) appliances. Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were evaluated and compared to 50 untreated class II division 1 cases matched by age, gender, ANB angle, and skeletal maturity. A paired sample, independent samples tests and discriminant analysis were performed for intra- and intergroup analysis. Treatment with both appliances resulted in significant reduction of skeletal and soft-tissue facial convexity, the overjet, and the prominence of the upper lip in comparison to untreated individuals (p < 0.001). Retroclination of maxillary incisors and proclination of mandibular incisors were seen, the latter being significantly more evident in the TB group (p < 0.05). Increase of effective mandibular length was more pronounced in the TB group. In conclusion, both AH and TB appliances contributed successfully to the correction of class II division 1 malocclusion when compared to the untreated subjects with predominantly dentoalveolar changes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5292161
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52921612017-02-15 Comparison of Activator-Headgear and Twin Block Treatment Approaches in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Spalj, Stjepan Mroz Tranesen, Kate Birkeland, Kari Katic, Visnja Pavlic, Andrej Vandevska-Radunovic, Vaska Biomed Res Int Research Article The purpose was to compare the treatment effects of functional appliances activator-headgear (AH) and Twin Block (TB) on skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue structures in class II division 1 malocclusion with normal growth changes in untreated subjects. The sample included 50 subjects (56% females) aged 8–13 years with class II division 1 malocclusion treated with either AH (n = 25) or TB (n = 25) appliances. Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were evaluated and compared to 50 untreated class II division 1 cases matched by age, gender, ANB angle, and skeletal maturity. A paired sample, independent samples tests and discriminant analysis were performed for intra- and intergroup analysis. Treatment with both appliances resulted in significant reduction of skeletal and soft-tissue facial convexity, the overjet, and the prominence of the upper lip in comparison to untreated individuals (p < 0.001). Retroclination of maxillary incisors and proclination of mandibular incisors were seen, the latter being significantly more evident in the TB group (p < 0.05). Increase of effective mandibular length was more pronounced in the TB group. In conclusion, both AH and TB appliances contributed successfully to the correction of class II division 1 malocclusion when compared to the untreated subjects with predominantly dentoalveolar changes. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2017 2017-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5292161/ /pubmed/28203569 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/4861924 Text en Copyright © 2017 Stjepan Spalj et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Spalj, Stjepan
Mroz Tranesen, Kate
Birkeland, Kari
Katic, Visnja
Pavlic, Andrej
Vandevska-Radunovic, Vaska
Comparison of Activator-Headgear and Twin Block Treatment Approaches in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
title Comparison of Activator-Headgear and Twin Block Treatment Approaches in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
title_full Comparison of Activator-Headgear and Twin Block Treatment Approaches in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
title_fullStr Comparison of Activator-Headgear and Twin Block Treatment Approaches in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Activator-Headgear and Twin Block Treatment Approaches in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
title_short Comparison of Activator-Headgear and Twin Block Treatment Approaches in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion
title_sort comparison of activator-headgear and twin block treatment approaches in class ii division 1 malocclusion
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5292161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28203569
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/4861924
work_keys_str_mv AT spaljstjepan comparisonofactivatorheadgearandtwinblocktreatmentapproachesinclassiidivision1malocclusion
AT mroztranesenkate comparisonofactivatorheadgearandtwinblocktreatmentapproachesinclassiidivision1malocclusion
AT birkelandkari comparisonofactivatorheadgearandtwinblocktreatmentapproachesinclassiidivision1malocclusion
AT katicvisnja comparisonofactivatorheadgearandtwinblocktreatmentapproachesinclassiidivision1malocclusion
AT pavlicandrej comparisonofactivatorheadgearandtwinblocktreatmentapproachesinclassiidivision1malocclusion
AT vandevskaradunovicvaska comparisonofactivatorheadgearandtwinblocktreatmentapproachesinclassiidivision1malocclusion