Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects

Abstract

The aims of this study were to determine whether the activator and activator headgear encourage mandibular growth, and whether there is any superiority of one appliance over the other or if the resultant changes are due to normal growth. Forty-nine skeletal Class II division 1 patients were selected. Thirty-three (13 females, 20 males; mean age 12.52 +/- 1.42 years) were treated with an Andresen activator and the remaining 16 (7 females, 9 males; mean age 13.04 +/- 1.47 years) with an activator headgear combination. Twenty Class II subjects (9 females, 11 males; mean age 12.57 +/- 1.11 years) who had previously refused treatment served as a control group. Cephalometric landmarks were marked and digitized by one author to avoid inter-observer variability. Nine angular and 12 linear measurements were established and measured using Vistadent AT software. A paired-sample t-test and an ANOVA test were used to statistically evaluate the findings. The results revealed that both the activator and the activator headgear combination significantly (P < 0.001) encouraged mandibular growth, but had little restraining effect on the maxilla. The mandibular incisors were more controlled in the activator headgear combination group. The resultant skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue changes differed significantly from those due to growth.

Değişik dik yön yüz büyüme paternine sahip iskeletsel sınıf 2 vakaların incelenmesi

“…Türkkahraman ve Sayın 16 iskeletsel Sınıf 2 tedavi ve kontrol gruplarını inceledikleri çalış-malarında, kontrol grubunda gözlem periyodu sonunda alt ve üst kesici dişlerde istatistiksel olarak önemli bir değişim gözlemlememişlerdir. Benzer şekilde Stahl ve ark.…”

“…Çalışmamızda da benzer şekilde keser konumlarında bir değişim bulgulanmamıştır. Türkkah-raman ve Sayın 16 istatistiksel olarak önemli dü-zeyde oklüzal düzlem eğiminde ortalama -1,65±2,99º lik bir değişim saptamışlardır. Oklü-zal düzlemdeki bu değişimin standart sapması-nın yüksek olduğu göz önüne alındığında, bu açının dentisyondaki varyasyonlar ile çok deği-şebileceği aşikardır.…”

Early Headgear Effects on the Eruption Pattern of the Maxillary Canines

“…24,25 In addition, cervical HG treatment has mostly been combined with functional appliances, extractions, bite plates, or other appliances. [26][27][28][29] In this study, the patients had moderate crowding in the anterior regions. Because the screening of the patients a HG indicates headgear group; angle ␣, the angle between the mid-axis of the maxillary canines and the midline; and angle ␤, the angle between the mid-axis of the canine and the mid-axis of the lateral incisor; T0, baseline; T1, 1-year follow-up; T2, 2-year follow-up; T3, 3-year follow-up; T4, 8-year follow-up; N ϭ 68.…”

Effects of Two Different Functional Appliances on Root Development of Posterior Teeth: Activator vs. Bite-jumping Appliance

“…Die Wirkungsweise der funktionskieferorthopädischen Geräte wird kontrovers diskutiert [4,5,9,10,23] und basiert auf einer Kombination aus orthodontischen und orthopä-dischen Effekten [5]. Dementsprechend lassen sich am Ende der Behandlung sowohl skelettale als auch dentale Effekte nachweisen [19].…”

“…The mechanism of action of functional appliances is a matter of some controversy [4,5,9,10,23]. It is based on a combination of orthodontic and orthopedic effects [5].…”