Comparison of the Effect on SNA, SNB and ANB Angles Regardıng Twın Block and Monoblock Actıvators Used in Class II, Dıvısıon 1 Anomalıes

Abstract

Class II malocclusions are the most frequently encountered, therefore the most widely treated anomaly by orthodontists. In the treatment of this disorder where aesthetics, phonation and function are lost, orthodontics play a major role. Functional devices are widely utilized in the treatment of Class II anomalies. These devices are the ones which direct the force of a special muscle group with the aid of the dentition to the basal bone system by changing the function and position of the mandibula. In this study, the effect of two different activators used in the treatment of Class II Division 1 anomalies on the sagittal development of maxilla and mandibula were compared. The study was carried out on; group 1 consisting of 21 patients 11 girls, 10 boys with an average of 13 treated with twin block, group 2 consisting of 17 patients 10 girls, 7 boys with an average age of 12 treated with monoblock, group 3 consisting of 16 patients 9 girls, 7 boys with an average age of 12 treated with monoblockHeadgear combination, group 4 consisting of 19 nontreated patients 11 girls, 8 boys with an average age of 12. In order to test the similarity of the values at the treatment/control beginning and end within the groups, Variance analysis and Duncan test were applied to the initial and final cephalometric values. As a result it was seen that the design of the activator can have an effect on the inhibition of the maxillary development. However, the provocation of the mandibulary development is not inspired by the activator design but by the amount of the activation and the daily use of the device.

Keywords

• SNA angle ANB angle, SNB angle, activator

Sınıf II, bölüm 1 maloklüzyonlarında kullanılan ikiz blok ve monoblok fonksiyonel tedavi aygıtlarının SNA, SNB ve ANB açıları üzerindeki etkilerinin karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Sınıf II maloklüzyonlar toplumda en sık rastlanılan ve bu yüzden de ortodontistlerin en çok tedavi ettikleri maloklüzyon tipidir. Estetiğin, fonasyonun ve fonksiyonun kaybına neden olan bu düzensizliğin düzeltilmesinde ortodonti büyük rol oynamaktadır. II sınıf anomalilerin tedavisinde fonksiyonel aygıtlar geniş kullanılmaktadırlar. Bu aygıtlar, mandibulanın fonksiyon ve pozisyonunu değiştirerek belli bir kas grubunun kuvvetini dentisyon aracılığıyla bazal kemik kaidesine yönlendiren aygıtlardır. Makalede sınıf II, bölüm 1 maloklüzyonların tedavisinde kullanılan 2 farklı aktivatörün maksilla ve mandibulanın sagittal gelişimi üzerindeki etkileri kıyaslanmıştır. Araştırma 1. grup ikiz blok aygıtıyla tedavi edilmiş ve yaş ortalamaları 13 olan 21 hastadan 11 kız, 10 erkek , 2. grup monoblok aygıtıyla tedavi edilmiş ve yaş ortalamaları 12 olan 17 hastadan 10 kız, 7 erkek , 3. grup monoblokHeadgear kombinasyonuyla tedavi edilmiş ve yaş ortalamaları 12 olan 16 hastadan 9 kız, 7 erkek , 4. grup ise tedavi edilmemiş ve yaş ortalamaları 12 olan 19 hastadan 11 kız, 8 erkek oluşan gruplar üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Gruplar içinde tedavi/kontrol başında ve sonundaki değerlerinin benzer olup olmadığının test edilmesi amacıyla başlangıç sonuç sefalometrik değerler arasında Varyans analizi ve Duncan testi uygulanmıştır. Sonuç olarak aktivator dizaynının maksillar gelişimin inhibisyonuna etki yapabildiği, fakat mandibular gelişimin provokasyonu aktivator dizaynından değil, aktivasyon miktarından ve aygıtın günlük kullanımından esinlendiği belirlenmiştir

Keywords

• SNA açısı, SNB açısı, ANB açısı aktivator

References

1. Ackerman JF, Proffit WR (1969) The characteristics of malocclusion: A modern app- roach to classificaion and diagnosis, American Journal of Orthodontics, 56, 443-54
2. Ülgen M. Ortodontik tedavi prensipleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Yayınları, 1999; Ankara
3. Woodside DG, Metaxas A, Altuna G (1987) The influence of functional appliance therapy on glenoid
4. fossa remodeling Am. J. Orthod. Dentofa- cial Orthop, 92, 181-198
5. Buschang, P.H., Santos-Pinto, A. (1998). Condylar growth and glenoid fossa displacement during childhood and adoles- cence. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 113: 437-42
6. Ruf, S., Pancherz, H. (1998). Temporo- mandibular joint growth adaptation in Herbst treatment: a prospective magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric roentgenographic study. Eur. J. Orthod. 20: 375-88
7. Ruf S, Baltromejus S, Pancherz H (2001) Effective condylar growth and chin po- sition changes in activator treatment: a cepha- lometric roentgenographic study, Angle Ort- hodontist 71, 4-11
8. Rabie ABM, Hagg U (2002) Factors re- gulating condylar growth, Am. J. Orthod. Den- tofacial Orthop, 122, 401-409

9. Voudouris JC and Kuftinec MM (2000) Inproved clinical use of Twin-Block and Herbst as a result of radiating viscoelastic tis- sue forces on the condyle and fossa in treat- ment and long-term retention: Growth relati- vity, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 117, 247-66
10. Joffe L, Jacobson A (1979) The maxil- lary orthopedic splint, American Journal of Orthodontics, 75, 54-69
11. Fotis V, Melsen B, Williams B, Droschl H (1984) Vertikal control as an impor- tant ingredient in the treatment of severe sagit- tal discrepancies, American Journal of Ortho- dontics, 86, 224-232
12. Teuscher U (1978) A growth related concept for skeletal Class II treatment, Ameri- can Journal of Orthodontics, 74, 258-275
13. Peiffer JP, Grobety D (1982) A philo- sophy of combined orthodontic-orthopedic tre- atment, American Journal of Orthodontics, 81,185-201
14. Levin RI (1985) Activator headgear therapy, American Journal of Orthodontics, 87, 91-109
15. Lagerström LO, Nielsen IL, Lee R, Isaacson RJ (1990) Dental and skeletal contri- butions to occlusal
16. correction in patients treated with the high-pull headgear-activator combination, American Journal of Orthodontics, 97, 495- 504
17. Cura N, Sarac M, Öztürk Y, Sürmeli N (1996) Orthodontic and orthopedic effects of Activator, Activator-HG combination, and Bass appliances: a comparative study, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 110, 36-45
18. Bendeus M, Hagg U, Rabie B (2002) Growth and treatment changes in patients trea- ted with a headgearactivator appliance, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 121, 376-384
19. Türkkahraman H, Sayın MÖ (2006) Effect of activator and activator headgear tre- atment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects, European Journal of Orthodontics, 28, 27-34
20. Van Beek H (1982) Overjet correction by a combined headgear and activator, Euro- pean Journal of Orthodontics, 4, 279-290
21. Öztürk Y, Tankuter N (1994) Class II: a comparison of activator and activator- headgear combination appliances, European Journal of Orthodontics, 16, 149-157
22. Mills CM and McCulloch KJ (1998) Treatment effects of the Twin-Block applian- ce: A cephalometric study, Am J Orthod Den- tofacial Orthop, 114, 15-24
23. Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT (1998) A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part 1-the hard tissues, European Journal of Orthodontics, 20, 501-16
24. Tümer N and Gültan AS (1999) Com- parison of the effects of monoblock and Twin- Block appliances on the skeletal and dentoal- veolar structures, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 116, 460-8
25. O’Brein K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, Mandal N, Chadwick S, Connolly I, Cook P, Birnie D, Hammond M, Harradine N, Lewis D, McDade C, Mitchell L, Murray A, O’Neill J, Read M, Robinson S, Roberts-Harry D, Sandler J, Shaw I, Berk NW (2003b) Effecti- veness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-Block appliance: A multicenter, rando- mized, controlled trial.
26. Part2: Psychosocial effects, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 124, 488-95
27. Lee RT, Kyi CS, Mack GJ (2007) A controlled clinical trial of the effects of the Twin Block and Dynamax appliances on the hard and soft tissues, European Journal of Ort- hodontics, 29, 272-282
28. Lund DI and Sandler PJ (1998) The ef- fects of Twin-Blocks: A prospective controlled study, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 113, 104-10
29. Toth LR, McNamara JA (1999) Tre- atment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance of Frankel compared with an untrea- ted Class II sample, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 116, 597-609
30. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara J (2000), Treatment timing for Twin-Blok therapy, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 118, 159-70
31. Trenouth (2000) Cephalometric evalu- ation of the Twin-block appliance in the treat- ment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with matched normative growth data, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 117, 54-9
32. Jena AK, Duggal R, Parkash H (2006) Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin- block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: A comparative study, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 130, 594- 602
33. Harvold EP, Vargervik K (1971) Morphogenetic response to activator treatment, American Journal of Orthodontics,n 60, 478- 490
34. Wieslander L, Lagerström I (1979) The effect of activator treatment on Class II malocclusions, American Journal of Orthodon- tics, 75, 20-26
35. Pancherz H (1984) A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contri- buting to Class II correction in activator treat- ment, American Journal of Orthodontics, 85, 125-134
36. Kaya VA (1993) Örtülü kapanışlı Ang- le II. Sınıf 1. Bölüm düzensizliklerinde Clark Twin-Blocks apareyi ile tedavinin sefalometrik yönden incelenmesi, Tez, İstanbul 1993