Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

01-05-2018 | Original Article

Short-term dentoskeletal changes following Class II treatment using a fixed functional appliance: the Austro Repositioner

A pilot study

Authors: M. Dolores Austro, Encarnación González, M. Angustias Peñalver, Domingo Pérez, José Antonio Alarcón

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 3/2018

Abstract

Objective

Purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of a fixed functional appliance, the Austro Repositioner, in dolicho- and brachyfacial skeletal Class II patients.

Material and methods

In all, 20 dolicho- and 25 brachyfacial consecutive patients treated with the Austro Repositioner were compared with untreated controls (20 dolicho- and 20 brachyfacial patients) with the same initial dentoskeletal features. Lateral cephalograms were acquired before and 1.0±0.2 year after therapy.

Results

Significant improvements in skeletal Class II relationships were observed in both groups. The ANB angle decreased (3.56° in dolicho- and 3.13° in brachyfacial patients, P < 0.001) due to changes localized exclusively in the mandible, the SNB angle increased to 3.20° in dolicho- and 3.02° in brachyfacial patients, and the total mandibular length (Co-Pg) increased to 6.47 mm in dolicho- and 5.78 mm in brachyfacial patients (P < 0.001). A favorable guidance of vertical pattern was also achieved in both groups, and no significant changes were observed in the upper and lower incisors in both groups.

Conclusions

The Austro Repositioner was effective for short-term treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion resulting from the retrusion of the mandible in both dolicho- and brachyfacial patients.

Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. (2005) The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod 11:119–129CrossRef

Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara JA Jr. (2000) Treatment timing for twin-block therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118:159–170. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.105571 CrossRefPubMed

Ballester A, Langlade M (2001) Unlocking the malocclusion with a semifixed bite plate. J Clin Orthod 35:544–548PubMed

Baysal A, Uysal T (2014) Dentoskeletal effects of twin block and Herbst appliances in patients with class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod 36:164–172. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt013 CrossRefPubMed

Burhan AS, Nawaya FR (2015) Dentoskeletal effects of the bite-jumping appliance and the twin-block appliance in the treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 37:330–337. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju052 CrossRefPubMed

Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA Jr. (2006) Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 129:599.e1–599.e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.010 (discussion e591–596)

De Almeida MR, Henriques JF, Ursi W (2002) Comparative study of the Frankel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in the treatment of class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121:458–466CrossRefPubMed

Franchi L, Alvetro L, Giuntini V, Masucci C, Defraia E, Baccetti T (2011) Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the forsus fatigue resistant device in class II patients. Angle Orthod 81:678–683. https://doi.org/10.2319/102710-629.1 CrossRefPubMed

Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA Jr. (1999) Treatment and posttreatment effects of acrylic splint Herbst appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 115:429–438CrossRefPubMed

10.

Ghislanzoni LT, Toll DE, Defraia E, Baccetti T, Franchi L (2011) Treatment and posttreatment outcomes induced by the mandibular advancement repositioning appliance; a controlled clinical study. Angle Orthod 81:684–691. https://doi.org/10.2319/111010-656.1 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Giuntini V, Vangelisti A, Masucci C, Defraia E, McNamara JA Jr., Franchi L (2015) Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance vs the forsus fatigue resistant device in growing class II patients. Angle Orthod 85:784–789. https://doi.org/10.2319/090514-624.1 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Jakobsone G, Latkauskiene D, McNamara JA Jr. (2013) Mechanisms of class II correction induced by the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase class II therapy: 1 year follow-up. Prog Orthod 14:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-1042-14-27 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.025 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lund DI, Sandler PJ (1998) The effects of twin blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113:104–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70282-3 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Martina R, Cioffi I, Galeotti A, Tagliaferri R, Cimino R, Michelotti A, Valletta R, Farella M, Paduano S (2013) Efficacy of the Sander bite-jumping appliance in growing patients with mandibular retrusion: a randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res 16:116–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12013 CrossRefPubMed

16.

McNamara JA Jr. (1981) Components of class II malocclusion in children 8–10 years of age. Angle Orthod 51:177–202. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1981)051<0177:COCIMI>2.0.CO;2 PubMed

17.

McNamara JA Jr. (1984) A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod 86:449–469CrossRefPubMed

18.

McNamara JA Jr., Howe RP, Dischinger TG (1990) A comparison of the Herbst and Frankel appliances in the treatment of class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 98:134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(90)70007-Y CrossRefPubMed

19.

Nance HN (1947) The limitations of orthodontic treatment; mixed dentition diagnosis and treatment. Am J Orthod 33:177–223PubMed

20.

O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, Mandall 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 (2003) Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: dental and skeletal effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124:234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889540603003524 (quiz 339)CrossRefPubMed

21.

O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, Mandall 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 (2003) Effectiveness of treatment for class II malocclusion with the Herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124:128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889540603003457 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Pancherz H (1982) The mechanism of class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 82:104–113CrossRefPubMed

23.

Pancherz H, Zieber K, Hoyer B (1997) Cephalometric characteristics of class II division 1 and class II division 2 malocclusions: a comparative study in children. Angle Orthod 67:111–120. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1997)067〈0111:CCOCID〉2.3.CO;2PubMed

24.

Pangrazio MN, Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger JL, Bayirli B, Movahhedian A (2012) Treatment effects of the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance in patients with class II skeletal malocclusions. Angle Orthod 82:971–977. https://doi.org/10.2319/120511-748.1 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Perinetti G, Cordella C, Pellegrini F, Esposito P (2008) The prevalence of malocclusal traits and their correlations in mixed dentition children: results from the Italian OHSAR Survey. Oral Health Prev Dent 6:119–129PubMed

26.

Phelan A, Tarraf NE, Taylor P, Honscheid R, Drescher D, Baccetti T, Darendeliler MA (2012) Skeletal and dental outcomes of a new magnetic functional appliance, the Sydney Magnoglide, in class II correction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 141:759–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.01.014 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Proffit WR, Fields HM, Sarver DM (2013) Contemporary orthodontics, 5th edn. Elsevier, St. Louis

28.

Proffit WR, Fields HM, Sarver DM (2007) Contemporary orthodontics, 4th edn. CV Mosby, St. Luis

29.

Ricketts RM (1981) Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics. The first fifty years. Angle Orthod 51:115–150. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1981)051<0115:PITCAO>2.0.CO;2 PubMed

30.

Riolo ML, Moyers RE, McNamara JA Jr, Hunter WS (1974) An atlas of craniofacial growth: cephalometric standards from The University School Growth Study, The University of Michigan. Monograph 2, Craniofacial Growth Series, Center for Human Growth and Development. Ann Arbor, Mich: The University of Michigan.

31.

Rosenblum RE (1995) Class II malocclusion: mandibular retrusion or maxillary protrusion? Angle Orthod 65:49–62. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1995)065<0049:CIMMRO>2.0.CO;2 PubMed

32.

Spalding O (2001) Treatment of class II malocclusion. In: Bishara S (ed) Text book of orthodontics. International edition. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 324–374

33.

Steiner CC (1953) Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 39:729–755CrossRef

34.

Toth LR, McNamara JA Jr. (1999) Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Frankel compared with an untreated class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 116:597–609CrossRefPubMed

35.

Tulloch JF, Proffit WR, Phillips C (2004) Outcomes in a 2-phase randomized clinical trial of early class II treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 125:657–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/S088954060400160X CrossRefPubMed

36.

Tumer N, Gultan AS (1999) Comparison of the effects of monoblock and twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 116:460–468CrossRefPubMed

37.

Viera AJ, Garrett JM (2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 37:360–363PubMed

38.

Wahl N (2006) Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 9: functional appliances to midcentury. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 129:829–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.03.019 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Windmiller EC (1993) The acrylic-splint Herbst appliance: a cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 104:73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(93)70030-R CrossRefPubMed

Title: Short-term dentoskeletal changes following Class II treatment using a fixed functional appliance: the Austro Repositioner
A pilot study
Authors: M. Dolores Austro
Encarnación González
M. Angustias Peñalver
Domingo Pérez
José Antonio Alarcón
Publication date: 01-05-2018
Publisher: Springer Medizin
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-018-0135-3

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Short-term dentoskeletal changes following Class II treatment using a fixed functional appliance: the Austro Repositioner

A pilot study

Abstract

Objective

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Coordinating bracket torque and incisor inclination

Mitteilungen DGKFO

Influence of geometric design characteristics on primary stability of orthodontic miniscrews

Is there an optimal initial amount of activation for midpalatal suture expansion?

Root resorption due to orthodontic treatment using self-ligating and conventional brackets

Influence of tooth position on wind instrumentalists’ performance and embouchure comfort