Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects.
Eur J Orthod. 2006 Feb; 28(1):27-34.EJ

Abstract

The aims of this study were to determine whether the activator and activator headgear encourage mandibular growth, and whether there is any superiority of one appliance over the other or if the resultant changes are due to normal growth. Forty-nine skeletal Class II division 1 patients were selected. Thirty-three (13 females, 20 males; mean age 12.52 +/- 1.42 years) were treated with an Andresen activator and the remaining 16 (7 females, 9 males; mean age 13.04 +/- 1.47 years) with an activator headgear combination. Twenty Class II subjects (9 females, 11 males; mean age 12.57 +/- 1.11 years) who had previously refused treatment served as a control group. Cephalometric landmarks were marked and digitized by one author to avoid inter-observer variability. Nine angular and 12 linear measurements were established and measured using Vistadent AT software. A paired-sample t-test and an ANOVA test were used to statistically evaluate the findings. The results revealed that both the activator and the activator headgear combination significantly (P < 0.001) encouraged mandibular growth, but had little restraining effect on the maxilla. The mandibular incisors were more controlled in the activator headgear combination group. The resultant skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue changes differed significantly from those due to growth.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Suleyman Demirel, Isparta, Turkey. kahraman@med.sdu.edu.trNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16093256

Citation

Türkkahraman, Hakan, and M Ozgür Sayin. "Effects of Activator and Activator Headgear Treatment: Comparison With Untreated Class II Subjects." European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 28, no. 1, 2006, pp. 27-34.
Türkkahraman H, Sayin MO. Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28(1):27-34.
Türkkahraman, H., & Sayin, M. O. (2006). Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects. European Journal of Orthodontics, 28(1), 27-34.
Türkkahraman H, Sayin MO. Effects of Activator and Activator Headgear Treatment: Comparison With Untreated Class II Subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28(1):27-34. PubMed PMID: 16093256.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects. AU - Türkkahraman,Hakan, AU - Sayin,M Ozgür, Y1 - 2005/08/10/ PY - 2005/8/12/pubmed PY - 2006/4/18/medline PY - 2005/8/12/entrez SP - 27 EP - 34 JF - European journal of orthodontics JO - Eur J Orthod VL - 28 IS - 1 N2 - The aims of this study were to determine whether the activator and activator headgear encourage mandibular growth, and whether there is any superiority of one appliance over the other or if the resultant changes are due to normal growth. Forty-nine skeletal Class II division 1 patients were selected. Thirty-three (13 females, 20 males; mean age 12.52 +/- 1.42 years) were treated with an Andresen activator and the remaining 16 (7 females, 9 males; mean age 13.04 +/- 1.47 years) with an activator headgear combination. Twenty Class II subjects (9 females, 11 males; mean age 12.57 +/- 1.11 years) who had previously refused treatment served as a control group. Cephalometric landmarks were marked and digitized by one author to avoid inter-observer variability. Nine angular and 12 linear measurements were established and measured using Vistadent AT software. A paired-sample t-test and an ANOVA test were used to statistically evaluate the findings. The results revealed that both the activator and the activator headgear combination significantly (P < 0.001) encouraged mandibular growth, but had little restraining effect on the maxilla. The mandibular incisors were more controlled in the activator headgear combination group. The resultant skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue changes differed significantly from those due to growth. SN - 0141-5387 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16093256/Effects_of_activator_and_activator_headgear_treatment:_comparison_with_untreated_Class_II_subjects_ L2 - https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ejo/cji062 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -