Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.
Angle Orthod. 2012 Sep; 82(5):907-14.AO

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects produced by the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of growing patients with Class II malocclusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted using lateral cephalograms of patients consecutively treated with MARA (n = 40) and AdvanSync (n = 30) during their skeletal growth spurt as evaluated by the improved cervical vertebral maturation method. A comparison was made with 24 untreated Class II control subjects obtained from the University of Michigan growth study and matched with the experimental groups for skeletal age, sex, and craniofacial morphology. Cephalograms were taken at three time points: (T1) pretreatment, (T2) postfunctional appliance treatment, and (T3) fixed orthodontic treatment completion. Treatment changes were evaluated between the time points using 35 variables. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Scheffe's post hoc test.

RESULTS

At the postfunctional appliances' phase (T2-T1), both appliances showed significant increases in total mandibular length, ramus height, and anterior/posterior facial height. The AdvanSync resulted in significant restriction of maxillary growth, 1° more than MARA. This effect continued during the fixed orthodontic treatment stage (T3-T2). The net changes (T3-T1) revealed significant mandibular growth enhancement with MARA (+2.7mm) and significant headgear effect with AdvanSync. Both appliances caused 5° flaring in mandibular incisors as well as significant decreases in overjet and overbite. The treatment time for AdvanSync was 1 year less than MARA.

CONCLUSION

The MARA and the AdvanSync resulted in normalization of the Class II malocclusion. The AdvanSync showed more headgear effect but less mandibular length enhancement than MARA did. Both appliances showed similar dentoalveolar changes.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. taljewair@gmail.comNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

22214390

Citation

Al-Jewair, Thikriat S., et al. "A Comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync Functional Appliances in the Treatment of Class II Malocclusion." The Angle Orthodontist, vol. 82, no. 5, 2012, pp. 907-14.
Al-Jewair TS, Preston CB, Moll EM, et al. A comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(5):907-14.
Al-Jewair, T. S., Preston, C. B., Moll, E. M., & Dischinger, T. (2012). A comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. The Angle Orthodontist, 82(5), 907-14. https://doi.org/10.2319/090411-569.1
Al-Jewair TS, et al. A Comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync Functional Appliances in the Treatment of Class II Malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(5):907-14. PubMed PMID: 22214390.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. AU - Al-Jewair,Thikriat S, AU - Preston,Charles B, AU - Moll,Eva-Maria, AU - Dischinger,Terry, Y1 - 2012/01/03/ PY - 2012/1/5/entrez PY - 2012/1/5/pubmed PY - 2013/5/4/medline SP - 907 EP - 14 JF - The Angle orthodontist JO - Angle Orthod VL - 82 IS - 5 N2 - OBJECTIVES: To determine the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects produced by the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of growing patients with Class II malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using lateral cephalograms of patients consecutively treated with MARA (n = 40) and AdvanSync (n = 30) during their skeletal growth spurt as evaluated by the improved cervical vertebral maturation method. A comparison was made with 24 untreated Class II control subjects obtained from the University of Michigan growth study and matched with the experimental groups for skeletal age, sex, and craniofacial morphology. Cephalograms were taken at three time points: (T1) pretreatment, (T2) postfunctional appliance treatment, and (T3) fixed orthodontic treatment completion. Treatment changes were evaluated between the time points using 35 variables. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Scheffe's post hoc test. RESULTS: At the postfunctional appliances' phase (T2-T1), both appliances showed significant increases in total mandibular length, ramus height, and anterior/posterior facial height. The AdvanSync resulted in significant restriction of maxillary growth, 1° more than MARA. This effect continued during the fixed orthodontic treatment stage (T3-T2). The net changes (T3-T1) revealed significant mandibular growth enhancement with MARA (+2.7mm) and significant headgear effect with AdvanSync. Both appliances caused 5° flaring in mandibular incisors as well as significant decreases in overjet and overbite. The treatment time for AdvanSync was 1 year less than MARA. CONCLUSION: The MARA and the AdvanSync resulted in normalization of the Class II malocclusion. The AdvanSync showed more headgear effect but less mandibular length enhancement than MARA did. Both appliances showed similar dentoalveolar changes. SN - 1945-7103 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/22214390/A_comparison_of_the_MARA_and_the_AdvanSync_functional_appliances_in_the_treatment_of_Class_II_malocclusion_ L2 - https://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article-lookup/doi/10.2319/090411-569.1 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -