Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Oct; 132(4):481-9.AJ

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies reported small but significant skeletal changes as a result of early treatment of Class II malocclusion with headgear and functional appliances. In this study, we report on the skeletal changes for 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted sy the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Florida between 1990 and 2000. A total of 261 subjects demonstrating at least a one half-cusp Class II molar relationship and meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study and had at least 1 follow-up visit. During phase 1, 86 subjects were treated with a bionator, 95 were treated with a headgear/biteplane, and 80 served as the observation group. For phase 2, all subjects were then treated with full orthodontics appliances. Skeletal changes were monitored with cephalograms taken at baseline, at the end of early Class II treatment or observation baseline, at the beginning of fixed appliances, and at end of orthodontic treatment.

RESULTS

Overall skeletal changes at the end of phase 1 treatment were as follows: (1) SNA angle increased in the bionator (0.51) and the observation groups (0.67), whereas it decreased (-0.50) in the headgear/biteplane group; (2) SNB angle increased in the bionator (1.36) and the observation groups (0.84), whereas it remained unchanged (0.19) in the headgear/biteplane group; (3) ANB angle decreased in the bionator (-0.85) and the headgear/biteplane groups (-0.72), and was unchanged in the observation group; and (4) the mandibular plane angle increased (1.30) only in the headgear/biteplane group. By the end of full orthodontic treatment, the skeletal differences in all measurements for all 3 groups were within 1 degrees . Linear regression models showed that, during phase 1, baseline value and treatment group were significant. However, when the entire treatment period was considered, treatment group had no effect.

CONCLUSIONS

There is temporary skeletal change as a result of phase I treatment with both appliances but no detectible skeletal difference between 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion by the end of full orthodontic treatment.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthodontics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla, USA. cdolce@dental.ufl.eduNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Language

eng

PubMed ID

17920501

Citation

Dolce, Calogero, et al. "Timing of Class II Treatment: Skeletal Changes Comparing 1-phase and 2-phase Treatment." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, vol. 132, no. 4, 2007, pp. 481-9.
Dolce C, McGorray SP, Brazeau L, et al. Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(4):481-9.
Dolce, C., McGorray, S. P., Brazeau, L., King, G. J., & Wheeler, T. T. (2007). Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 132(4), 481-9.
Dolce C, et al. Timing of Class II Treatment: Skeletal Changes Comparing 1-phase and 2-phase Treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(4):481-9. PubMed PMID: 17920501.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment. AU - Dolce,Calogero, AU - McGorray,Susan P, AU - Brazeau,Lisamarie, AU - King,Gregory J, AU - Wheeler,Timothy T, PY - 2005/04/28/received PY - 2005/08/15/revised PY - 2005/08/31/accepted PY - 2007/10/9/pubmed PY - 2007/10/24/medline PY - 2007/10/9/entrez SP - 481 EP - 9 JF - American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics JO - Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop VL - 132 IS - 4 N2 - INTRODUCTION: Previous studies reported small but significant skeletal changes as a result of early treatment of Class II malocclusion with headgear and functional appliances. In this study, we report on the skeletal changes for 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted sy the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Florida between 1990 and 2000. A total of 261 subjects demonstrating at least a one half-cusp Class II molar relationship and meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study and had at least 1 follow-up visit. During phase 1, 86 subjects were treated with a bionator, 95 were treated with a headgear/biteplane, and 80 served as the observation group. For phase 2, all subjects were then treated with full orthodontics appliances. Skeletal changes were monitored with cephalograms taken at baseline, at the end of early Class II treatment or observation baseline, at the beginning of fixed appliances, and at end of orthodontic treatment. RESULTS: Overall skeletal changes at the end of phase 1 treatment were as follows: (1) SNA angle increased in the bionator (0.51) and the observation groups (0.67), whereas it decreased (-0.50) in the headgear/biteplane group; (2) SNB angle increased in the bionator (1.36) and the observation groups (0.84), whereas it remained unchanged (0.19) in the headgear/biteplane group; (3) ANB angle decreased in the bionator (-0.85) and the headgear/biteplane groups (-0.72), and was unchanged in the observation group; and (4) the mandibular plane angle increased (1.30) only in the headgear/biteplane group. By the end of full orthodontic treatment, the skeletal differences in all measurements for all 3 groups were within 1 degrees . Linear regression models showed that, during phase 1, baseline value and treatment group were significant. However, when the entire treatment period was considered, treatment group had no effect. CONCLUSIONS: There is temporary skeletal change as a result of phase I treatment with both appliances but no detectible skeletal difference between 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion by the end of full orthodontic treatment. SN - 1097-6752 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/17920501/Timing_of_Class_II_treatment:_skeletal_changes_comparing_1_phase_and_2_phase_treatment_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0889-5406(07)00498-2 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -