Six years long term evaluation of a class II division 1 patient treated with Herbst appliance and 2 miniscrews in the lower arch as anchorage reinforcement: A case report

Manni, Antonio; Papi, Giulia; Migliorati, Marco

doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2022.100642

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All of these FFA could successfully achieve class II correction even though patient discomfort and difficulties in daily clinic management may reduce their use. Removable functional appliances (RFA) have an extensive literature background with many advantages for the patient and few side effects; compliance remains the greatest problem with RFA that can ultimately lead to unfavorable results [34][35][36][37][38][39].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Removable Functional Appliances on the Dentoalveolar Unit in Growing Patients

Cardarelli,

Drago,

Rizzi

et al. 2024

Medicina

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: The objective of this retrospective controlled study is to compare class II growing patients who underwent treatment with two different functional appliances: the Fraenkel regulator (FR-2), utilized as the control group, and the elastodontic device “Cranium Occluded Postural Multifunctional Harmonizers” (AMCOP), utilized as the test group. Materials and Methods: The study sample consisted of 52 patients with class II division I malocclusion (30 males, 22 females, mean age 8.6 ± 1.4 years) who were treated with the two different types of appliances: Group 1 (n = 27, mean age 8 [7.00, 9.00] years, 12 females, 15 males) received treatment with AMCOP, while Group 2 (n = 25, mean age 9.2 years [8.20, 10.00], 10 females, 15 males) received treatment with FR-2. The mean treatment duration for Group 1 was 28.00 [21.50, 38.00] months, while for Group 2 it was 23.70 [17.80, 27.40] months. Cephalometric analyses were performed on lateral cephalograms taken before treatment (T1) and after treatment (T2). Results: Significant intragroup differences were observed over time in Group 1 for 1^/PP. Similarly, significant intragroup differences were observed over time in Group 2 for SNB, ANB, and IMPA. Conclusions: Both treatment modalities resulted in the correction of class II malocclusion with dentoalveolar compensation, although the treatment duration with AMCOP tended to be longer on average.

show abstract