Cargando…

3D Comparison of Mandibular Response to Functional Appliances: Balters Bionator versus Sander Bite Jumping

AIM: To assess the three-dimensional (3D) maxillomandibular and dental response to Balters Bionator (BB) and the Sander Bite Jumping Appliance (SBJA) in growing patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven Class II division 1 patients (13 males, 14 females), consecutively treated with either the BB...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gazzani, Francesca, Ruellas, Antonio Carlos de Oliveira, Faltin, Kurt, Franchi, Lorenzo, Cozza, Paola, Bigliazzi, Renato, Cevidanes, Lucia Helena Soares, Lione, Roberta
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5941721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29854734
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/2568235
_version_ 1783321341498228736
author Gazzani, Francesca
Ruellas, Antonio Carlos de Oliveira
Faltin, Kurt
Franchi, Lorenzo
Cozza, Paola
Bigliazzi, Renato
Cevidanes, Lucia Helena Soares
Lione, Roberta
author_facet Gazzani, Francesca
Ruellas, Antonio Carlos de Oliveira
Faltin, Kurt
Franchi, Lorenzo
Cozza, Paola
Bigliazzi, Renato
Cevidanes, Lucia Helena Soares
Lione, Roberta
author_sort Gazzani, Francesca
collection PubMed
description AIM: To assess the three-dimensional (3D) maxillomandibular and dental response to Balters Bionator (BB) and the Sander Bite Jumping Appliance (SBJA) in growing patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven Class II division 1 patients (13 males, 14 females), consecutively treated with either the BB (9 females, 7 males; 10.1 ± 1.6 years) or SBJA (5 females, 6 males; 11 ± 1.9 years), were collected from a single orthodontic practice. All patients presented overjet ≥5 mm, full Class II or end-to-end molar relationship, mandibular retrusion. CBCT scans were available at T1 and after removal of the functional appliances (T2) with a mean interval of 18 months. The 3D location and direction of skeletal and dental changes with growth and treatment were quantitatively assessed. Statistical analysis was performed by means of Mann–Whitney U test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Patients treated with the SBJA and BB orthopedic appliances presented, respectively, 4.7 mm and 4.5 mm of 3D displacement of the chin, with marked ramus growth of, respectively, 3.7 mm and 2.3 mm. While the mandible and maxilla grew downward and forward, no opening of the mandible plane was observed. Both appliances adequately controlled labial inclination of lower incisors (1.3° and 0.3°, for the SBJA and BB groups, resp.). No significant between-group differences were found for the T2−T1 changes for any of the variables, with the exception of molar displacements (significantly greater in the SBJA group than in the BB group, 1.2 mm and 0.9 mm, resp.). CONCLUSIONS: The maxillomandibular and dental growth responses to BB and SBJA therapies are characterized by vertical ramus growth and elongation of mandible that improve the maxillomandibular relationship with adequate control of lower incisor position.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5941721
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59417212018-05-31 3D Comparison of Mandibular Response to Functional Appliances: Balters Bionator versus Sander Bite Jumping Gazzani, Francesca Ruellas, Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Faltin, Kurt Franchi, Lorenzo Cozza, Paola Bigliazzi, Renato Cevidanes, Lucia Helena Soares Lione, Roberta Biomed Res Int Research Article AIM: To assess the three-dimensional (3D) maxillomandibular and dental response to Balters Bionator (BB) and the Sander Bite Jumping Appliance (SBJA) in growing patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven Class II division 1 patients (13 males, 14 females), consecutively treated with either the BB (9 females, 7 males; 10.1 ± 1.6 years) or SBJA (5 females, 6 males; 11 ± 1.9 years), were collected from a single orthodontic practice. All patients presented overjet ≥5 mm, full Class II or end-to-end molar relationship, mandibular retrusion. CBCT scans were available at T1 and after removal of the functional appliances (T2) with a mean interval of 18 months. The 3D location and direction of skeletal and dental changes with growth and treatment were quantitatively assessed. Statistical analysis was performed by means of Mann–Whitney U test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Patients treated with the SBJA and BB orthopedic appliances presented, respectively, 4.7 mm and 4.5 mm of 3D displacement of the chin, with marked ramus growth of, respectively, 3.7 mm and 2.3 mm. While the mandible and maxilla grew downward and forward, no opening of the mandible plane was observed. Both appliances adequately controlled labial inclination of lower incisors (1.3° and 0.3°, for the SBJA and BB groups, resp.). No significant between-group differences were found for the T2−T1 changes for any of the variables, with the exception of molar displacements (significantly greater in the SBJA group than in the BB group, 1.2 mm and 0.9 mm, resp.). CONCLUSIONS: The maxillomandibular and dental growth responses to BB and SBJA therapies are characterized by vertical ramus growth and elongation of mandible that improve the maxillomandibular relationship with adequate control of lower incisor position. Hindawi 2018-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5941721/ /pubmed/29854734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/2568235 Text en Copyright © 2018 Francesca Gazzani 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
Gazzani, Francesca
Ruellas, Antonio Carlos de Oliveira
Faltin, Kurt
Franchi, Lorenzo
Cozza, Paola
Bigliazzi, Renato
Cevidanes, Lucia Helena Soares
Lione, Roberta
3D Comparison of Mandibular Response to Functional Appliances: Balters Bionator versus Sander Bite Jumping
title 3D Comparison of Mandibular Response to Functional Appliances: Balters Bionator versus Sander Bite Jumping
title_full 3D Comparison of Mandibular Response to Functional Appliances: Balters Bionator versus Sander Bite Jumping
title_fullStr 3D Comparison of Mandibular Response to Functional Appliances: Balters Bionator versus Sander Bite Jumping
title_full_unstemmed 3D Comparison of Mandibular Response to Functional Appliances: Balters Bionator versus Sander Bite Jumping
title_short 3D Comparison of Mandibular Response to Functional Appliances: Balters Bionator versus Sander Bite Jumping
title_sort 3d comparison of mandibular response to functional appliances: balters bionator versus sander bite jumping
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5941721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29854734
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/2568235
work_keys_str_mv AT gazzanifrancesca 3dcomparisonofmandibularresponsetofunctionalappliancesbaltersbionatorversussanderbitejumping
AT ruellasantoniocarlosdeoliveira 3dcomparisonofmandibularresponsetofunctionalappliancesbaltersbionatorversussanderbitejumping
AT faltinkurt 3dcomparisonofmandibularresponsetofunctionalappliancesbaltersbionatorversussanderbitejumping
AT franchilorenzo 3dcomparisonofmandibularresponsetofunctionalappliancesbaltersbionatorversussanderbitejumping
AT cozzapaola 3dcomparisonofmandibularresponsetofunctionalappliancesbaltersbionatorversussanderbitejumping
AT bigliazzirenato 3dcomparisonofmandibularresponsetofunctionalappliancesbaltersbionatorversussanderbitejumping
AT cevidanesluciahelenasoares 3dcomparisonofmandibularresponsetofunctionalappliancesbaltersbionatorversussanderbitejumping
AT lioneroberta 3dcomparisonofmandibularresponsetofunctionalappliancesbaltersbionatorversussanderbitejumping