Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Treatment effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator associated with fixed appliances.
Prog Orthod. 2014; 15:54.PO

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator, associated with fixed appliances.

METHODS

The sample comprised 77 young individuals divided into 3 groups: Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.15 years; group 2 had 30 patients, treated with the Bionator and fixed appliances, for a mean treatment time of 3.92 years; and the control group included 22 subjects followed for a mean period of 2.13 years. The initial and final lateral cephalograms of the patients were evaluated. Intergroup comparison at the initial stage and of the treatment changes were performed by analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Their effects consisted in a restrictive effect on the maxilla, a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors in both groups and intrusion with the Jasper Jumper appliance, maxillary molar distalization with the Jasper Jumper, extrusion and mesialization of the mandibular molars, both appliances provided significant improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of both appliances in class II malocclusion treatment are similar; however, treatment with the Jasper Jumper was shorter than with the Bionator.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil. leniananeves@uol.com.br.Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil. jansong@travelnet.com.br.Department of Orthodontics, Ingá Faculty, Rodovia PR 317, n° 6114, Maringá, PR, 87035-510, Brazil. rohercan@uol.com.br.Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil. karina-lima@uol.com.br.Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil. thaismmf@usp.br.Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil. jfchenri@fob.usp.br.

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Study
Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

25182030

Citation

Neves, Leniana Santos, et al. "Treatment Effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator Associated With Fixed Appliances." Progress in Orthodontics, vol. 15, 2014, p. 54.
Neves LS, Janson G, Cançado RH, et al. Treatment effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator associated with fixed appliances. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:54.
Neves, L. S., Janson, G., Cançado, R. H., de Lima, K. J., Fernandes, T. M., & Henriques, J. F. (2014). Treatment effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator associated with fixed appliances. Progress in Orthodontics, 15, 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0054-9
Neves LS, et al. Treatment Effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator Associated With Fixed Appliances. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:54. PubMed PMID: 25182030.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Treatment effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator associated with fixed appliances. AU - Neves,Leniana Santos, AU - Janson,Guilherme, AU - Cançado,Rodrigo Hermont, AU - de Lima,Karina Jerônimo Rodrigues Santiago, AU - Fernandes,Thaís Maria Freire, AU - Henriques,José Fernando Castanha, Y1 - 2014/09/02/ PY - 2014/06/01/received PY - 2014/08/12/accepted PY - 2014/9/4/entrez PY - 2014/9/4/pubmed PY - 2016/8/3/medline KW - Activator appliances KW - Cephalometry KW - Orthodontic appliance design KW - Treatment outcome SP - 54 EP - 54 JF - Progress in orthodontics JO - Prog Orthod VL - 15 N2 - BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator, associated with fixed appliances. METHODS: The sample comprised 77 young individuals divided into 3 groups: Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.15 years; group 2 had 30 patients, treated with the Bionator and fixed appliances, for a mean treatment time of 3.92 years; and the control group included 22 subjects followed for a mean period of 2.13 years. The initial and final lateral cephalograms of the patients were evaluated. Intergroup comparison at the initial stage and of the treatment changes were performed by analysis of variance. RESULTS: Their effects consisted in a restrictive effect on the maxilla, a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors in both groups and intrusion with the Jasper Jumper appliance, maxillary molar distalization with the Jasper Jumper, extrusion and mesialization of the mandibular molars, both appliances provided significant improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of both appliances in class II malocclusion treatment are similar; however, treatment with the Jasper Jumper was shorter than with the Bionator. SN - 2196-1042 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/25182030/Treatment_effects_of_the_Jasper_Jumper_and_the_Bionator_associated_with_fixed_appliances_ L2 - https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0054-9 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -