Top

international journal of stomatology & occlusion medicine

Published in:

01-09-2011 | review article

Do functional orthodontic appliances stimulate mandibular growth in class II division 1 patients?

A systematic review of the literature

Authors: Dr. Michael Hans Bertl, Carina Mandl, Adriano Giacomo Crismani

Published in: international journal of stomatology & occlusion medicine | Issue 2/2011

Abstract

Background

The effectiveness of functional orthodontic treatment and the resulting skeletal response have always been discussed controversially. Therefore a systematic review of the literature was conducted on this subject with special attention to mandibular growth.

Methods

Based on Cochrane Collaboration® recommendations a research of the literature was carried out. The meta-analysis examined 3 appliances for the period between 1996 and 2008: Herbst appliance (HA), activator (AC) and headgear-activator (HAC). The cephalometric parameters under review were SNA, SNB, ANB, OLp-A, OLp-Pg (distances between the occlusal line perpendicular and A/Pg), Co-Gn and the PPl angle (angle between ANS-PNS and N-S plane).

Results

A total of 11 studies were considered. Maxillary changes through SNA and OLp-A were most prominent for the HAC (- 1.93°mm and - 2.6 mm, respectively). Mandibulary changes through SNB and OLp-Pg were almost identical for all 3 appliances. The HAC showed the greatest intermaxillary effect (∆ANB = - 2.54°) although a decrease in SNA accounted for most of it. The biggest increase in the vertical parameter PPl angle and the mandibular length Co-Gn were recorded for the AC (+ 2.25°mm and + 4.01 mm, respectively).

Conclusions

The HA, AC and HAC appliances significantly influenced the evaluated cephalometric parameters. The desired forward placement of the mandible is clinically inferior and always accompanied by a constraint of the maxilla. Therefore the decision to treat with functional appliances has to be carefully evaluated based on the benefits and possible side-effects for the individual patient.

Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA Jr. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:599.e1-12; discussion e1-6.PubMed

Patel HP, Moseley HC, Noar JH. Cephalometric determinants of successful functional appliance therapy. Angle Orthod. 2002;72:410–7.PubMed

Aelbers CM, Dermaut LR. Orthopedics in orthodontics: Part I. Fiction or reality—a review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;110:513–9.PubMedCrossRef

Harrison JE, O’Brien KD, Worthington HV. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;CD003452.

Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. 2008.

Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod. 1982;82:104–13.PubMedCrossRef

Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. Br Med J. 2001;322:1479–80.CrossRef

Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA Jr. Treatment and posttreatment effects of acrylic splint Herbst appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115:429–38.PubMedCrossRef

Cozza P, De Toffol L, Colagrossi S. Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes during activator therapy. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26:293–302.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Croft RS, Buschang PH, English JD, Meyer R. A cephalometric and tomographic evaluation of Herbst treatment in the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;116:435–43.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Janson G, Caffer Dde C, Henriques JF, de Freitas MR, Neves LS. Stability of Class II, division 1 treatment with the headgear-activator combination followed by the edgewise appliance. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:594–604.PubMed

12.

Lai M, McNamara JAJ. An evaluation of two-phase treatment with the Herbst appliance and preadjusted edgewise therapy. Semin Orthod. 1998;4:46–58.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Marsan G. Effects of activator and high-pull headgear combination therapy: skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue profile changes. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29:140–8.PubMedCrossRef

14.

VanLaecken R, Martin CA, Dischinger T, Razmus T, Ngan P. Treatment effects of the edgewise Herbst appliance: a cephalometric and tomographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:582–93.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A, Sari Z. The effects of activator treatment on the craniofacial structures of Class II division 1 patients. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25:87–93.PubMedCrossRef

16.

de Almeida MR, Henriques JF, de Almeida RR, Weber U, McNamara JAJ. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Herbst appliance in the mixed dentition. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:540–7.PubMed

17.

Sari Z, Goyenc Y, Doruk C, Usumez S. Comparative evaluation of a new removable Jasper Jumper functional appliance vs an activator-headgear combination. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:286–93.PubMed

18.

Türkkahraman H, Sayin MO. Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28:27–34.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Björk A. The principle of the Andresen method of orthodontic treatment. A discussion based on cephalometric x-ray analysis of treated cases. Am J Orthod. 1951;37:437–58.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Luder HU. Skeletal profile changes related to two patterns of activator effects. Am J Orthod. 1982;81:390–396.PubMedCrossRef

21.

McNamara JAJ, Bookstein FL, Shaughnessy TG. Skeletal and dental changes following functional regulator therapy on class II patients. Am J Orthod. 1985;88:91–110.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Perillo L, Johnston LEJ, Ferro A. Permanence of skeletal changes after function regulator (FR-2) treatment of patients with retrusive Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;109:132–9.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Jakobsson SO, Paulin G. The influence of activator treatment on skeletal growth in angle Class II: 1 cases. A roentgenocephalometric study. Eur J Orthod. 1990;12:174–84.PubMed

24.

Buschang PH, Stroud J, Alexander RG. Differences in dental arch morphology among adult females with untreated Class I and Class II malocclusion. Eur J Orthod. 1994;16:47–52.PubMed

25.

Tulloch JF, Medland W, Tuncay OC. Methods used to evaluate growth modification in Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;98:340–7.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Jones G, Buschang PH, Kim KB, Oliver DR. Class II non-extraction patients treated with the Forsus fatigue resistant device versus intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:332–8.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Kim YH. Overbite depth indicator with particular reference to anterior open-bite. Am J Orthod. 1974;65:586–611.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Kim YH, Vietas JJ. Anteroposterior dysplasia indicator: an adjunct to cephalometric differential diagnosis. Am J Orthod. 1978;73:619–33.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Nielsen IL, Lagerstrom LO. Individual response to treatments using Teuscher activator. Tandlaegebladet. 1991;95:882–91.PubMed

30.

Teuscher U. A growth-related concept for skeletal class II treatment. Am J Orthod. 1978;74:258–75.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Van Beek H. Overjet correction by a combined headgear and activator. Eur J Orthod. 1982;4:279–90.PubMed

32.

Sander FG. Biomechanical studies on the movement of the mandible in headgear activator treatment. J Orofac Orthop. 1985;46:297–310.

33.

Singh GD, Thind BS. Effects of the headgear-activator Teuscher appliance in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion: a geometric morphometric study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2003;6:88–95.PubMed

34.

McSherry PF, Bradley H. Class II correction-reducing patient compliance: a review of the available techniques. J Orthod. 2000;27:219–25.PubMed

35.

O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, et al. Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:128–37.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Wieslander L. Intensive treatment of severe Class II malocclusions with a headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod. 1984;86:1–13.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York: Interscience Publications; 1940.

38.

Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. St. Louis: Mosby; 2007.

39.

Riolo ML. An atlas of craniofacial growth. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Human Growth and Development; 1974.

40.

Koroluk LD, Tulloch JF, Phillips C. Incisor trauma and early treatment for Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123:117–25; discussion 125–6.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Do functional orthodontic appliances stimulate mandibular growth in class II division 1 patients?
A systematic review of the literature
Authors: Dr. Michael Hans Bertl
Carina Mandl
Adriano Giacomo Crismani
Publication date: 01-09-2011
Publisher: Springer Vienna
Published in: international journal of stomatology & occlusion medicine / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 1867-2221
Electronic ISSN: 1867-223X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12548-011-0009-4

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Do functional orthodontic appliances stimulate mandibular growth in class II division 1 patients?

A systematic review of the literature

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

Evaluation of periodontal surgical procedures in type-2 diabetic patients

Gardner syndrome

Functional cephalometry analysis and computerized axiography before and after therapy with “Function Generating Bite” in a deep bite patient

Sleep bruxism needs deep sleep stages and seems to reduce psychological stress

Effects of orthodontic reconstruction on brain activity in a patient with masticatory dysfunction

Tuberculous lymphadenitis presenting as inflammatory cervicofacial swelling in a 12-year-old girl