Cranial base and maxillary changes in patients treated with Frankel' s functional regulator (1b).
(66/85)
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess cranial base and maxillary growth in patients with Class II-type I malocclusions when treated with Frankel' s functional regulator (FR-1b). STUDY DESIGN: The treatment group was made up of 43 patients that were divided into two groups: prepubescent (n: 28), and pubescent (n: 15). The control group included 40 patients who did not receive any kind of treatment and were likewise divided into a prepubescent group (n: 19), and a pubescent group (n: 21). A computerized cephalometric study was carried out and superimpositions were done in order to assess the antero-posterior, vertical and rotational movement of the maxilla. RESULTS: The results indicate that anterior cranial length is not affected by the regulator but the cranial deflection of the treatment group was diminished. Although a slight counterclockwise rotation effect on the upper jaw was observed due to treatment, no growth restriction of the maxilla in a vertical or antero-posterior direction was observed compared to other non-treated Class II-type I malocclusion patients. CONCLUSION: The functional regulator does not have any effect on anterior cranial length, but it does affect the angulation of the cranial base. According to our results, the appliance has demonstrated a flattening effect of the cranial base (p<0.05) in the treated sample. The functional regulator induces counterclockwise rotation rather than vertical or sagittal changes in the maxilla. (+info)
Treatment timing of MARA and fixed appliance therapy of Class II malocclusion.
(67/85)
Study of mandibular growth in patients treated with Frankel's functional regulator (1b).
(68/85)
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess mandibular growth in patients with Class II division 1 malocclusions when treated with Frankel's functional regulator 1b. STUDY DESIGN: The treatment group was made up of 43 patients that were divided into two groups: prepubescent (n:28), and pubescent (n:15). The control group included 40 patients who did not receive any kind of treatment and were likewise divided into a prepubescent group (n:19), and a pubescent group (n:21). A computerized cephalometric study was carried out and superimpositions were done in order to assess the antero-posterior, vertical and rotational movements of the mandible. A two-way ANOVA with interaction was done to compare the changes between the control group and the treatment group, while the Student t for independent samples was used to compare each age group. RESULTS: The Gnathion and Gonion points showed significant differences in the whole sample (p<0.001) as well as in the prepubescent (p<0.001) and pubescent groups (p<0.05). Rotational changes of the mandible measured using the facial axis and mandibular plane showed no statistical differences between both groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The results show that the FR produces vertical orthopedic growth in the mandible but not horizontal growth compared to non-treated Class II-type I malocclusion patients. No rotational changes were found in the mandible, but we did record mandibular growth along the inclination of the facial axis. (+info)
Bite force and its association with stability following Class II/1 functional appliance treatment.
(69/85)
Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes concurrent to use of Twin Block appliance in class II division I cases with a deficient mandible: a cephalometric study.
(71/85)