A comparison of craniofacial Class I and Class II growth patterns

Riesmeijer, Arnold M; Prahl-Andersen, Birte; Mascarenhas, Anna K; Joo, B.H.; Vig, Katherine W.L.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.05.012

Cited by 46 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An untreated control group was included in order to compare the results of the fixed functional phase in the FMI and Forsus groups with the effect of the normal growth, as was previously recommended. 29,30 Previous noncontrolled trials 16,31 mentioned that they could not assess whether the skeletal changes were due to growth or treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional effects of the mini-implant–anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial

Elkordy

Abouelezz

Fayed

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To detect three-dimensionally the effects of using mini-implant anchorage with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD). Materials and Methods: The sample comprised 43 skeletal Class II females with deficient mandibles. They were randomly allocated into three groups: 16 patients (13.25 6 1.12 years) received FFRD alone (Forsus group), 15 subjects (13.07 6 1.41 years) received FFRD and miniimplants (FMI group), and 12 subjects (12.71 6 1.44 years) were in the untreated control group. Three-dimensional analyses of cone beam computed tomographic images were completed, and the data were statistically analyzed. Results: Class I relationship and overjet correction were achieved in 88% of the cases. None of the two treatment groups showed significant mandibular skeletal effects. In the FMI group, significant headgear effect, decrease in maxillary width, and increase in the lower facial height were noted. In the FMI group, retroclination of maxillary incisors and distalization of maxillary molars were significantly higher. Proclination and intrusion of mandibular incisors were significantly greater in the Forsus group. Conclusions: FFRD resulted in Class II correction mainly through dentoalveolar effects and with minimal skeletal effects. Utilization of mini-implant anchorage effectively reduced the unfavorable proclination and intrusion of mandibular incisors but did not produce additional skeletal effects. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:292-305.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional effects of the mini-implant–anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial

Elkordy

Abouelezz

Fayed

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cross-sectional studies have investigated the data of large craniofacial databases to infer conclusions for growth changes in individuals with Class I and Class II malocclusions. [1][2][3] The most appropriate approach is the longitudinal analysis of the same subject over time. [4][5][6][7][8] A recent study found that patterns of craniofacial growth in subjects with untreated Class II malocclusion essentially are similar to those observed in untreated subjects with normal occlusion, with the exception of significantly smaller increases in mandibular length.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thin-plate Spline Analysis of Craniofacial Growth in Class I and Class II Subjects

Franchi

Baccetti

Stahl

et al. 2007

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the craniofacial growth characteristics of untreated subjects with Class II division 1 malocclusion with those of subjects with normal (Class I) occlusion from the prepubertal through the postpubertal stages of development. Materials and Methods: The Class II division 1 sample consisted of 17 subjects (11 boys and six girls). The Class I sample also consisted of 17 subjects (13 boys and four girls). Three craniofacial regions (cranial base, maxilla, and mandible) were analyzed on the lateral cephalograms of the subjects in both groups by means of thin-plate spline analysis at T1 (prepubertal) and T2 (postpubertal). Both cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons were performed on both size and shape differences between the two groups. Results:The results showed an increased cranial base angulation as a morphological feature of Class II malocclusion at the prepubertal developmental phase. Maxillary changes in either shape or size were not significant. Subjects with Class II malocclusion exhibited a significant deficiency in the size of the mandible at the completion of active craniofacial growth as compared with Class I subjects. Conclusion: A significant deficiency in the size of the mandible became apparent in Class II subjects during the circumpubertal period and it was still present at the completion of active craniofacial growth.

show abstract

“…Por otro lado, los patrones funcionales de cada individuo (respiración, deglución y masticación, entre otras) pueden alterar la forma y el patrón de crecimiento [21]. Es importante saber que los patrones esquelé-ticos se establecen desde los 6 años de edad, y pueden empeorar con el crecimiento al incrementarse la deficiencia mandibular o el prognatismo maxilar [22,23].…”

Section: Patrón De Crecimiento De Pacientes Clases II Esqueléticaunclassified

“…Además, la cantidad de crecimiento anual en estos pacientes se encuentra disminuida (de 0 a 1,2 mm anuales). Cefalométricamente se ha encontrado que el maxilar superior se encuentra más protruido en los pacientes clase II (sna aumentado) y la posición mandibular retruida (snb disminuido) entre los 10 y 14 años [22]. La rotación mandibular en este tipo de pacientes puede ser hacia abajo y atrás (patrón de crecimiento vertical) o arriba y adelante (patrón de crecimiento horizontal) (tabla 2).…”

Section: Patrón De Crecimiento De Pacientes Clases II Esqueléticaunclassified

Aparatos de avance mandibular: ¿mito o realidad?

Quintero

Mariaca

2014

Rev. nac. odontol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumen. La mayoría de los pacientes con maloclusión clase II esquelética presentan posición retruida de la mandíbula. El término aparato funcional se refiere a aparatos fijos o removibles diseñados para alterar la posición mandibular sagital y verticalmente, resultando en cambios esqueléticos, ortodónticos y ortopédicos. A pesar de su larga historia, los aparatos funcionales continúan siendo controversiales en su uso, efectividad y modo de acción. Esta revisión permitirá conocer las diferentes alternativas de tratamiento para la maloclusión clase II esquelética causada por retrusión mandibular, entre los que están Bionator, Twin Block, Herbst, Jasper Jumper, Forsus, mara y Advansync, de los cuales se explicará su modo de acción, sus efectos a nivel dental y esquelético y el tiempo de tratamiento óptimo para conseguir estabilidad.Palabras clave: avance mandibular, maloclusión de Angle clase II, mandíbula, retrognatismo. Mandibular Advancement Apparatus: Myth or Reality?Abstract. Most patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion present a retruded position of the mandible. Functional appliances are fixed or removable appliances designed to alter the sagittal and vertical mandibular position, resulting in orthodontic and orthopedic skeletal changes. Despite their long history, functional appliances remain controversial in their use, effectiveness and mode of action. This review will reveal the different treatment options for skeletal Class II malocclusion caused by mandibular retrusion, such as: Bionator, Twin block, Herbst, Jasper jumper, Forsus, mara and Advansync; it will also explain the mode of action, skeletal and dental effects and optimum treatment time for stability.

show abstract

A comparison of craniofacial Class I and Class II growth patterns

Cited by 46 publications

References 10 publications

Three-dimensional effects of the mini-implant–anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial

Three-dimensional effects of the mini-implant–anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial

Thin-plate Spline Analysis of Craniofacial Growth in Class I and Class II Subjects

Aparatos de avance mandibular: ¿mito o realidad?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About