BackgroundTreatment effects of removable functional appliances in Class II malocclusion patients according to the pre-pubertal or pubertal growth phase has yet to be clarified.ObjectivesTo assess and compare skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of removable functional appliances in Class II malocclusion treatment between pre-pubertal and pubertal patients.Search methodsLiterature survey using the Medline, SCOPUS, LILACS and SciELO databases, the Cochrane Library from inception to May 31, 2015. A manual search was also performed.Selection criteriaRandomised (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials with a matched untreated control group. No restrictions were set regarding the type of removable appliance whenever used alone.Data collection and analysisFor the meta-analysis, cephalometric parameters on the supplementary mandibular growth were the main outcomes, with other cephalometric parameters considered as secondary outcomes. Risk of bias in individual and across studies were evaluated along with sensitivity analysis for low quality studies. Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals for annualised changes were computed according to a random model. Differences between pre-pubertal and pubertal patients were assessed by subgroup analyses. GRADE assessment was performed for the main outcomes.ResultsTwelve articles (but only 3 RCTs) were included accounting for 8 pre-pubertal and 7 pubertal groups. Overall supplementary total mandibular length and mandibular ramus height were 0.95 mm (0.38, 1.51) and 0.00 mm (-0.52, 0.53) for pre-pubertal patients and 2.91 mm (2.04, 3.79) and 2.18 mm (1.51, 2.86) for pubertal patients, respectively. The subgroup difference was significant for both parameters (p<0.001). No maxillary growth restrain or increase in facial divergence was seen in either subgroup. The GRADE assessment was low for the pre-pubertal patients, and generally moderate for the pubertal patients.ConclusionsTaking into account the limited quality and heterogeneity of the included studies, functional treatment by removable appliances may be effective in treating Class II malocclusion with clinically relevant skeletal effects if performed during the pubertal growth phase.

Objective: To assess skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of fixed functional appliances, alone or in combination with multibracket appliances (comprehensive treatment), on Class II malocclusion in pubertal and postpubertal patients. Materials and Methods: Literature survey was conducted using the Medline, SCOPUS, LILACS, and SciELO databases and The Cochrane Library, and through a manual search. The studies retrieved had to have a matched untreated control group. No restrictions were set regarding the type of fixed appliance, treatment length, or to the cephalometric analysis used. Data extraction was mostly predefined at the protocol stage by two authors. Supplementary mandibular elongation was used for the meta-analysis. Results: Twelve articles qualified for the final analysis of which eight articles were on pubertal patients and four were on postpubertal patients. Overall supplementary total mandibular elongations as mean (95% confidence interval) were 1.95 mm (1.47 to 2.44) and 2.22 mm (1.63 to 2.82) among pubertal patients and 21.73 mm (22.60 to 20.86) and 0.44 mm (20.78 to 1.66) among postpubertal patients, for the functional and comprehensive treatments, respectively. For pubertal subjects, maxillary growth restraint was also reported. Nevertheless, skeletal effects alone would not account for the whole Class II correction even in pubertal subjects with dentoalveolar effects always present. Conclusions: Fixed functional treatment is effective in treating Class II malocclusion with skeletal effects when performed during the pubertal growth phase, very few data are available on postpubertal patients. (Angle Orthod. 2015;85:480-492.)

Subjects with prolonged mouth breathing showed a significant reduction of the palatal surface area and volume leading to a different development of the palatal morphology when compared with subjects with normal breathing pattern.

The aim of this longitudinal study was to assess whether correction of unilateral posterior crossbite in the primary dentition results in improvement of facial symmetry and increase of palatal surface area and palatal volume. A group of 60 Caucasian children in the primary dentition, aged 5.3 ± 0.7 years, were collected at baseline. The group consisted of 30 children with a unilateral posterior crossbite with midline deviation of at least 2 mm (CB) and 30 without malocclusion (NCB). The CB group was treated using an acrylic plate expander. The children's faces and dental casts were scanned using a three-dimensional laser scanning device. Non-parametric tests were used for data analysis to assess differences over the 30 months period of follow-up. The CB children had statistically significantly greater facial asymmetry in the lower part of the face (P < 0.05) and a significantly smaller palatal volume (P < 0.05) than the NCB children at baseline. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at 6, 12, 18, and 30 months follow-ups. Treatment of unilateral posterior crossbite in the primary dentition period resulted in an improvement of facial symmetry in the lower part of the face (P < 0.05) and increase of the palatal surface area and palatal volume (P < 0.001). At 30 months, relapse was observed in eight children (26.7 per cent). Treatment of unilateral posterior crossbite in the primary dentition improves facial symmetry and increases the palatal surface area and the palatal volume, though it creates normal conditions for normal occlusal development and skeletal growth.

Three-dimensional evaluation of the maxillary arch and palate highlighted significant differences between UCLP and non-UCLP subjects in mixed dentition phase, suggesting that orthopaedic maxillary expansion is advisable in UCLP.