Class II correction in patients treated with Class II elastics and with fixed functional appliances: A comparative study

Nelson, Birgitta; Hansen, Ken; Hägg, Urban

doi:10.1067/mod.2000.104489

Cited by 81 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5,6,10,20,24 The percentages also showed that the overjet reduction and the improvement in the molar relationship were mainly dental, as expected. [19][20][21]24 It was apparent that significant dentoalveolar changes did occur within the treatment groups when compared with the control group. The exceptions were U6-FH distance in the UA group, and the vertical linear movement of the upper incisors (U1-FH) in both of the treatment groups.…”

Section: Treatment Effectsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…18 Although numerous suggestions have been made about the application of Class II elastics, there are surprisingly few studies in the literature that have examined their isolated effects, and most of them are based on Begg mechanics. 4,5,[19][20][21] Their effects were compared within two different fixed appliance systems by Ellen et al, 4 who found no difference in lower molar anchorage loss between the use of Class II elastics with bioprogressive and with standard edgewise techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two Different Applications of Class II Elastics with Nonextraction Segmental Techniques

Uzel

Toroğlu

2007

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the relative effects of Class II elastics applied directly with utility arches (UAs) or with the Reciprocal Mini-Chin Cup (RMCC) appliance. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion were included. Fifteen of them were treated with the RMCC appliance and the other 15 treated with Class II elastics on UAs. Lateral cephalograms of an additional 15 untreated persons having the same characteristics as the treatment groups were used as a control group. Results: The mean control period was 10 months. Class I molar and canine relationships were achieved in a mean treatment time of 4.6 months with the RMCC appliance and in 8.5 months with the elastics on UAs. The amount of overjet reduction was 4.7 mm in the RMCC group (87.87% dental) and 5.2 mm in the UA group (80.76% dental). The molar correction was 4.5 mm in the RMCC group (87.36% dental) and 2.0 mm in the UA group (51.47% dental). The anterior lower facial height increased in both of the treatment groups. Conclusions:The RMCC appliance is a valuable alternative for Class II elastic use in Class II cases in which the upper molars need to be moved to the distal more than the upper incisors.

show abstract

Section: Treatment Effectsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Different Applications of Class II Elastics with Nonextraction Segmental Techniques

Uzel

Toroğlu

2007

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Only one study has compared the effects of Class II correction obtained with elastics and fixed interarch (Herbst) appliances. 4 While molar corrections were similar, anterior lower facial height and the mandibular plane angle increased more in the elastics group than in the Herbst group. The skeletal improvement was 10% in the elastics group, compared with 66% in the Herbst group.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The effects of Class II elastics include mesial movements of the mandibular molars, movements and tipping of the mandibular incisors, distal movements and tipping of the maxillary incisors, extrusion of the mandibular molars and maxillary incisors, and clockwise rotation of the mandibular and the occlusal planes. [2][3][4][5][6][7] However, intermaxillary elastics rely heavily on patient compliance for their effectiveness, and compliance in orthodontics is variable and difficult to predict. 8 Poor cooperation can lead to poor treatment results and increased treatment time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Class II Non-Extraction Patients Treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device Versus Intermaxillary Elastics

Jones

Buschang

Kim

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

153

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) as a compliance-free alternative to Class II elastics. Materials and Methods: A sample of 34 (14 female, 20 male) consecutively treated nonextraction FRD patients (12.6 years of age) were matched with a sample of 34 (14 female, 20 male) consecutively treated nonextraction Class II elastics patients (12.2 years of age) based on four pretreatment variables (ANB, L1-GoMe, SN-GoMe, and treatment duration). Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs were traced and analyzed using the pitchfork analysis and a vertical cephalometric analysis. t-Tests were used to evaluate group differences. Group differences were evaluated using t-tests. Results:No statistically significant differences were found in the treatment changes between the groups. There was a general trend for mesial movement of the maxilla, mandible, and dentition during treatment for both groups. The mandibular skeletal advancement and dental movements were greater than those in the maxilla, which accounted for the Class II correction. Lower incisor proclination was evident in both groups. Vertically, the maxillary and mandibular molars erupted during treatment in both groups, while lower incisors proclined. With the exception of lower molar mesial movements and total molar correction, which were significantly (P Ͻ .05) greater in the Forsus group, there were no statistically significant group differences in the treatment changes. Conclusions:The Forsus FRD is an acceptable substitute for Class II elastics for noncompliant patients.

show abstract

“…Os elásticos intermaxilares são dispositivos intrabucais que promovem efeitos dentoalveolares com o intuito de auxiliar a correção das más oclusões (NELSON;HANSEN;HAGG, 2000). O componente horizontal da força dos elásticos de Classe II favorece a correção no sentido anteroposterior movimentando os dentes superiores para distal e os inferiores para mesial sendo uma excelente opção de tratamento nos casos de má oclusão suave à moderada, porém também são dependentes da cooperação dos pacientes (REDDY et al, 2000).…”

Section: Tratamento Da Classe II Dentáriaunclassified

Avaliação cefalométrica comparativa do tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II com o distalizador first class em ancoragem convencional e esquelética e aparelho extrabucal cervical seguidos de aparelho fixo

Grec¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Class II correction in patients treated with Class II elastics and with fixed functional appliances: A comparative study

Cited by 81 publications

References 12 publications

Two Different Applications of Class II Elastics with Nonextraction Segmental Techniques

Two Different Applications of Class II Elastics with Nonextraction Segmental Techniques

Class II Non-Extraction Patients Treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device Versus Intermaxillary Elastics

Avaliação cefalométrica comparativa do tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II com o distalizador first class em ancoragem convencional e esquelética e aparelho extrabucal cervical seguidos de aparelho fixo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About