“…This greater extrusion of mandibular molars in the Bionator group compared to the control group is also in agreement with previous studies in the literature [18,20-22]. This increased vertical development of the mandibular molars was expected since acrylic trimming is performed with this objective, based on Harvold's principle of differential eruption, depending on the need to correct the overbite that normally accompanies class II, division 1 malocclusion [13,14]. …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Jasper Jumper (Figure 1) and Bionator (Figure 2) appliance designs were described in detail in previously published articles [13,14]. Figure 1
Jasper Jumper appliance.…”
BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator, associated with fixed appliances.MethodsThe sample comprised 77 young individuals divided into 3 groups: Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.15 years; group 2 had 30 patients, treated with the Bionator and fixed appliances, for a mean treatment time of 3.92 years; and the control group included 22 subjects followed for a mean period of 2.13 years. The initial and final lateral cephalograms of the patients were evaluated. Intergroup comparison at the initial stage and of the treatment changes were performed by analysis of variance.ResultsTheir effects consisted in a restrictive effect on the maxilla, a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors in both groups and intrusion with the Jasper Jumper appliance, maxillary molar distalization with the Jasper Jumper, extrusion and mesialization of the mandibular molars, both appliances provided significant improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship.ConclusionsThe effects of both appliances in class II malocclusion treatment are similar; however, treatment with the Jasper Jumper was shorter than with the Bionator.
“…This greater extrusion of mandibular molars in the Bionator group compared to the control group is also in agreement with previous studies in the literature [18,20-22]. This increased vertical development of the mandibular molars was expected since acrylic trimming is performed with this objective, based on Harvold's principle of differential eruption, depending on the need to correct the overbite that normally accompanies class II, division 1 malocclusion [13,14]. …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Jasper Jumper (Figure 1) and Bionator (Figure 2) appliance designs were described in detail in previously published articles [13,14]. Figure 1
Jasper Jumper appliance.…”
BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator, associated with fixed appliances.MethodsThe sample comprised 77 young individuals divided into 3 groups: Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.15 years; group 2 had 30 patients, treated with the Bionator and fixed appliances, for a mean treatment time of 3.92 years; and the control group included 22 subjects followed for a mean period of 2.13 years. The initial and final lateral cephalograms of the patients were evaluated. Intergroup comparison at the initial stage and of the treatment changes were performed by analysis of variance.ResultsTheir effects consisted in a restrictive effect on the maxilla, a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors in both groups and intrusion with the Jasper Jumper appliance, maxillary molar distalization with the Jasper Jumper, extrusion and mesialization of the mandibular molars, both appliances provided significant improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship.ConclusionsThe effects of both appliances in class II malocclusion treatment are similar; however, treatment with the Jasper Jumper was shorter than with the Bionator.
“…Since then, there has been a decrease of extraction treatment consequent to studies which showed relapses even in these cases [14,15], the possibility of protruding the mandibular incisors in some situations [16,17], the belief that there could be a relationship between extractions and temporomandibular disorders [18,19], and the possibility of treatments with interproximal stripping [20,21]. Technical changes also may have also influenced this decline, such as an increase in orthopedic appliances usage [22], maxillary expanders [23], as well as treatment in two phases [24,25]. …”
BackgroundStudies that show frequencies of different orthodontic treatment protocols can be used as valuable parameters in the interpretation of treatment tendency with time. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate all orthodontic treatment planning conducted at the Orthodontic Department at Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Brazil, since 1973, in order to investigate extraction and non-extraction protocol frequencies selected at each considered period.MethodsThe sample comprised 3,413 records of treated patients and was evaluated according to the protocol choice, divided into 10 groups: Protocol 0 (non-extraction); Protocol 1 (four first premolar extractions); Protocol 2 (two first maxillary and two second mandibular premolars); Protocol 3 (two maxillary premolar extractions); Protocol 4 (four second premolars); Protocol 5 (asymmetric premolar extractions); Protocol 6 (incisor or canine extractions); Protocol 7 (first or second molar extractions); Protocol 8 (atypical extractions) and Protocol 9 (agenesis and previously missing permanent teeth). These protocols were evaluated in seven 5-year intervals: Interval 1 (1973 to 1977); Interval 2 (1978 to 1982); Interval 3 (1983 to 1987); Interval 4 (1988 to 1992); Interval 5 (1993 to 1997); Interval 6 (1998 to 2002); Interval 7 (2003 to 2007). The frequency of each protocol was compared between the seven intervals, using the proportion test (P < 0.05).ResultsThe results showed that 10 protocol frequencies were significantly different among the 7 time intervals.ConclusionsThe non-extraction protocol frequency increased gradually with consequent reduction of extraction treatments. The four premolar extraction protocol frequency decreased gradually while the two maxillary premolar extraction protocol has maintained the same frequency of indications throughout time.
“…Systematic errors were evaluated with paired t-tests at P , .05, and casual errors were calculated according to Dahlberg's formula (Se 2 5 Sd 2 /2n), in which Se 2 is the error variance and d is the difference between two determinations of the same variable. 10 …”
Section: Error Of the Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, evidence 1,2 has indicated that use of a one-phase protocol in the permanent dentition is more efficient than use of a two-phase protocol since similar occlusal results are achieved in a shorter treatment time.…”
Objective:
To evaluate the dentoskeletal changes of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Twin Force Bite Corrector (TFBC).
Materials and Methods:
The sample comprised 86 lateral cephalograms obtained from 43 subjects with Class II division 1 malocclusion; the subjects were divided into two groups. The experimental group comprised 23 patients with a mean initial age of 12.11 years who were treated with the TFBC for a mean period of 2.19 years. The control group included 40 lateral cephalograms from 20 Class II nontreated patients, with an initial mean age of 12.55 years and a mean observation period of 2.19 years. The lateral cephalograms were evaluated before and after orthodontic treatment in group 1 and in the beginning and end of the observation period in group 2. t-Tests were used to compare the initial and final cephalometric characteristics of the groups as well as the amount of change.
Results:
The experimental group presented greater maxillary growth restriction and mandibular retrusion than the control group, as well as greater maxillomandibular relationship improvement and greater labial tipping of the mandibular incisors. The results also showed a greater decrease in overbite and overjet in the experimental group, and there were no statistically significant differences in the craniofacial growth pattern between groups.
Conclusions:
The TFBC promotes restriction of anterior maxillary displacement without significant changes in mandibular length and position and improvement of maxillomandibular relationship without changes in facial growth and significant buccal tipping of mandibular incisors. Class II correction with the TFBC occurred primarily as a result of dentoalveolar changes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
