Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

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

Year 2021, Volume: 31 Issue: 4, 500 - 506, 14.10.2021
https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.977613

Abstract

Objective: 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-treat¬ment/baseline (T1) and post-treatment/observation (T2) lateral cephalograms were ret¬rospectively 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.
Key words: Andresen activator, Headgear, Cephalometry


Sınıf II Hastalarının Tedavisinde Kullanılan 2 Tedavi Yönteminden Activatör ve Headgear ile Oluşan Dentofasiyal Morfoloji Değişimleri. Bir Retrospektif Sefalometrik Çalışma
Amaç: Sınıf II hastalarının tedavisinde kullanılan 2 tedavi yönteminden activatör ve Headgear ile oluşan dentofasiyal morfoloji değişimlerini karşılaştırmaktır.
Materyal ve Yöntem: Aktivatör grubu Sınıf II malokluzyonlu 14 bireyden (ortalama yaşları 13.54 ± 1.85 yıl), Headgear (HG) grubu Sınıf II malokluzyonlu 15 bireyden (ortalama yaşları 11.56 ± 0.97 yıl) ve kontrol grubu Sınıf I kapanış ilişkili14 bireyden (ortalama yaşları 11.56 ± 1.21 yıl) oluşmaktadır. Tüm bireylerden tedavi/gözlem öncesi (T1) ve tedavi/gözlem periyodu sonrasında sefalometrik (T2) filmler alındı ve bu filmler standart sefalometrik analiz ile incelendi. Elde edilen veriler eşleştirilmiş t testi, ANOVA ve Tukey HSD testleri ile analiz edildi.
Bulgular: A noktası aktivatör ve kontrol gruplarında sırasıyla 0.50 ve 0.51 mm öne doğru ve HG grubunda 0.37 mm geriye doğru hareket gösterdi, ancak bu hareketler gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak önemsizdi. B noktası aktivatör, HG ve kontrol gruplarında sırasıyla 3.32, 1.27 and 0.96 mm öne doğru hareket gösterdi ve aktivatör grubundaki hareket miktarı diğer gruplardan istatistiksel olarak önemli miktarda fazla bulundu. Aktivatör grubunda U1-SN açısı önemli oranda (p< .001) azalıp (7.39 derece) ve IMPA açısı ise önemli oranda (p< .001) artarken (5.14 derece), bu açılar diğer 2 grupta 1 dereceden az olacak şekilde önemsiz ve küçük değişimler gösterdi. Üst dudağın pozisyonu, nazolabial açı, mandibular düzlem açısı ve korpus uzunluğunda ise gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak önemli farklı değişimler gözlemlenmedi. Yumuşak doku yüz profilinde olumlu değişimler tüm gruplarda görüldü, ancak bu değişimlerin activatör grubunda daha belirgindi (p< .05).
Sonuçlar: HG grubu küçük ve önemsiz dentofasiyal değişimler gösterdi. Aktivatör grubu olumlu iskeletsel değişimler göstermiş olup, bu grupta istenmeyen dentoalveolar değişimler de meydana gelmiştir. Ancak, aktivatör grubunda yumuşak doku yüz profilinde daha belirgin ve olumlu (pozitif) değişimler gözlemlenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Andresen aktivatörü, Headgear, Sefalometri.

References

  • 1. Keeling SD, Wheeler TT, King GJ, Garvan CW, Cohen DA, Cabassa S, McGorray SP, Taylor MG (1998) Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113:40-50.
  • 2. Tulloch JF, Phillips C, Koch G, Proffit WR (1997) The effect of early intervention on skeletal pattern in Class II malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 111:391-400.
  • 3. Haralabakis NB, Halazonetis DJ, Sifakakis IB (2003) Activator versus cervical headgear: superimpositional cephalometric comparison. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 123:296-305.
  • 4. Maetevorakul S, Viteporn S (2016) Factors Influencing Soft Tissue Profile Changes Following Orthodontic Treatment in Patients With Class II Division 1 Malocclusion. Prog Orthod 17:13.
  • 5. Heino T, Kokko H, Vuollo V, Pirttiniemi P (2020) Effect of cervical headgear on dental arch area, shape and interarch dimensions : A randomized study. 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 (2021). Management of skeletal class II malocclusion using bimaxillary skeletal anchorage supported fixed functional appliances : A novel technique. J Orofac Orthop 82:42-53.
  • 8. Hourfar J, Kinzinger GSM, Euchner L, Lisson JA (2020). Differential skeletal and dental effects after orthodontic treatment with bite jumping appliance or activator: a retrospective cephalometric study. Clin Oral Investig. 24:2513-2521.
  • 9. Looi LK, Mills JR (1986) The effect of two contrasting forms of orthodontic treatment on the facial profile. Am J Orthod 89:507-517.
  • 10. Nelson C, Harkness M, Herbison P (1993) Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 104:153-161.
  • 11. AL-Nimri K, Abo-Zomor M, Alomari S (2016) Changes in mandibular position in treated Class II division 2 malocclusions in growing and non-growing subjects. Aust Orthod J 32:73-81.
  • 12. Varlik S K, Gültan A, Tümer N (2008) Comparison of the effects of Twin Block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile. EurJ Orthod 30:128-134.
  • 13. Nanda RS, Meng H, Kapila S, Goorhuis J (1990) Growth changes in the soft tissue facial profile. Angle Orthod 60:177-190.
  • 14. D'Antò V, Bucci R, Franchi L, Rongo R, Michelotti A, Martina R (2015) Class II functional orthopaedic treatment: a systematic review of systematic reviews. J Oral Rehabil. 42:624-642
  • 15. Martins RP, da Rosa Martins JC, Martins LP, Buschang PH. (2008) Skeletal and dental components of Class II correction with the bionator and removable headgear splint appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:732-741.
  • 16. Vargervik K, Harvold EP (1985). Response to activator treatment in Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 88:242-251.
  • 17. LeCornu M, Cevidanes LH, Zhu H, Wu CD, Larson B, Nguyen T (2013) Three-dimensional treatment outcomes in Class II patients treated with the Herbst appliance: a pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:818-830.
  • 18. Riola ML, Moyers RE, McNamara JA, Hunter WS (1974). An atlas of craniofacial growth and development. Ann Arbor, MI. Mosby,
  • 19. Ochoa BK, Nanda RS (2004) Comparison of maxillary and mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 125:148-159.

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

Year 2021, Volume: 31 Issue: 4, 500 - 506, 14.10.2021
https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.977613

Abstract

Objective: 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-treat¬ment/baseline (T1) and post-treatment/observation (T2) lateral cephalograms were ret¬rospectively 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. Key words: Andresen activator, Headgear, Cephalometry Sınıf II Hastalarının Tedavisinde Kullanılan 2 Tedavi Yönteminden Activatör ve Headgear ile Oluşan Dentofasiyal Morfoloji Değişimleri. Bir Retrospektif Sefalometrik Çalışma Amaç: Sınıf II hastalarının tedavisinde kullanılan 2 tedavi yönteminden activatör ve Headgear ile oluşan dentofasiyal morfoloji değişimlerini karşılaştırmaktır. Materyal ve Yöntem: Aktivatör grubu Sınıf II malokluzyonlu 14 bireyden (ortalama yaşları 13.54 ± 1.85 yıl), Headgear (HG) grubu Sınıf II malokluzyonlu 15 bireyden (ortalama yaşları 11.56 ± 0.97 yıl) ve kontrol grubu Sınıf I kapanış ilişkili14 bireyden (ortalama yaşları 11.56 ± 1.21 yıl) oluşmaktadır. Tüm bireylerden tedavi/gözlem öncesi (T1) ve tedavi/gözlem periyodu sonrasında sefalometrik (T2) filmler alındı ve bu filmler standart sefalometrik analiz ile incelendi. Elde edilen veriler eşleştirilmiş t testi, ANOVA ve Tukey HSD testleri ile analiz edildi. Bulgular: A noktası aktivatör ve kontrol gruplarında sırasıyla 0.50 ve 0.51 mm öne doğru ve HG grubunda 0.37 mm geriye doğru hareket gösterdi, ancak bu hareketler gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak önemsizdi. B noktası aktivatör, HG ve kontrol gruplarında sırasıyla 3.32, 1.27 and 0.96 mm öne doğru hareket gösterdi ve aktivatör grubundaki hareket miktarı diğer gruplardan istatistiksel olarak önemli miktarda fazla bulundu. Aktivatör grubunda U1-SN açısı önemli oranda (p< .001) azalıp (7.39 derece) ve IMPA açısı ise önemli oranda (p< .001) artarken (5.14 derece), bu açılar diğer 2 grupta 1 dereceden az olacak şekilde önemsiz ve küçük değişimler gösterdi. Üst dudağın pozisyonu, nazolabial açı, mandibular düzlem açısı ve korpus uzunluğunda ise gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak önemli farklı değişimler gözlemlenmedi. Yumuşak doku yüz profilinde olumlu değişimler tüm gruplarda görüldü, ancak bu değişimlerin activatör grubunda daha belirgindi (p< .05). Sonuçlar: HG grubu küçük ve önemsiz dentofasiyal değişimler gösterdi. Aktivatör grubu olumlu iskeletsel değişimler göstermiş olup, bu grupta istenmeyen dentoalveolar değişimler de meydana gelmiştir. Ancak, aktivatör grubunda yumuşak doku yüz profilinde daha belirgin ve olumlu (pozitif) değişimler gözlemlenmiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Andresen aktivatörü, Headgear, Sefalometri

References

  • 1. Keeling SD, Wheeler TT, King GJ, Garvan CW, Cohen DA, Cabassa S, McGorray SP, Taylor MG (1998) Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113:40-50.
  • 2. Tulloch JF, Phillips C, Koch G, Proffit WR (1997) The effect of early intervention on skeletal pattern in Class II malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 111:391-400.
  • 3. Haralabakis NB, Halazonetis DJ, Sifakakis IB (2003) Activator versus cervical headgear: superimpositional cephalometric comparison. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 123:296-305.
  • 4. Maetevorakul S, Viteporn S (2016) Factors Influencing Soft Tissue Profile Changes Following Orthodontic Treatment in Patients With Class II Division 1 Malocclusion. Prog Orthod 17:13.
  • 5. Heino T, Kokko H, Vuollo V, Pirttiniemi P (2020) Effect of cervical headgear on dental arch area, shape and interarch dimensions : A randomized study. 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 (2021). Management of skeletal class II malocclusion using bimaxillary skeletal anchorage supported fixed functional appliances : A novel technique. J Orofac Orthop 82:42-53.
  • 8. Hourfar J, Kinzinger GSM, Euchner L, Lisson JA (2020). Differential skeletal and dental effects after orthodontic treatment with bite jumping appliance or activator: a retrospective cephalometric study. Clin Oral Investig. 24:2513-2521.
  • 9. Looi LK, Mills JR (1986) The effect of two contrasting forms of orthodontic treatment on the facial profile. Am J Orthod 89:507-517.
  • 10. Nelson C, Harkness M, Herbison P (1993) Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 104:153-161.
  • 11. AL-Nimri K, Abo-Zomor M, Alomari S (2016) Changes in mandibular position in treated Class II division 2 malocclusions in growing and non-growing subjects. Aust Orthod J 32:73-81.
  • 12. Varlik S K, Gültan A, Tümer N (2008) Comparison of the effects of Twin Block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile. EurJ Orthod 30:128-134.
  • 13. Nanda RS, Meng H, Kapila S, Goorhuis J (1990) Growth changes in the soft tissue facial profile. Angle Orthod 60:177-190.
  • 14. D'Antò V, Bucci R, Franchi L, Rongo R, Michelotti A, Martina R (2015) Class II functional orthopaedic treatment: a systematic review of systematic reviews. J Oral Rehabil. 42:624-642
  • 15. Martins RP, da Rosa Martins JC, Martins LP, Buschang PH. (2008) Skeletal and dental components of Class II correction with the bionator and removable headgear splint appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:732-741.
  • 16. Vargervik K, Harvold EP (1985). Response to activator treatment in Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 88:242-251.
  • 17. LeCornu M, Cevidanes LH, Zhu H, Wu CD, Larson B, Nguyen T (2013) Three-dimensional treatment outcomes in Class II patients treated with the Herbst appliance: a pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:818-830.
  • 18. Riola ML, Moyers RE, McNamara JA, Hunter WS (1974). An atlas of craniofacial growth and development. Ann Arbor, MI. Mosby,
  • 19. Ochoa BK, Nanda RS (2004) Comparison of maxillary and mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 125:148-159.
There are 19 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Dentistry
Journal Section Araştırma Makalesi
Authors

Nihat Kılıç This is me

Abdulvahit Erdem This is me

Sema Tunç This is me

Publication Date October 14, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 31 Issue: 4

Cite

APA Kılıç, N., Erdem, A., & Tunç, S. (2021). 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, 31(4), 500-506. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.977613
AMA Kılıç N, Erdem A, Tunç S. 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. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. October 2021;31(4):500-506. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.977613
Chicago Kılıç, Nihat, Abdulvahit Erdem, and Sema Tunç. “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 31, no. 4 (October 2021): 500-506. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.977613.
EndNote Kılıç N, Erdem A, Tunç S (October 1, 2021) 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 31 4 500–506.
IEEE N. Kılıç, A. Erdem, and S. Tunç, “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”, Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 500–506, 2021, doi: 10.17567/ataunidfd.977613.
ISNAD Kılıç, Nihat et al. “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 31/4 (October 2021), 500-506. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.977613.
JAMA Kılıç N, Erdem A, Tunç S. 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. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2021;31:500–506.
MLA Kılıç, Nihat et al. “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, vol. 31, no. 4, 2021, pp. 500-6, doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.977613.
Vancouver Kılıç N, Erdem A, Tunç S. 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. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2021;31(4):500-6.

Bu eser Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır. Tıklayınız.