Spring-loaded bite-blocks for early correction of skeletal open bite associated with thumb sucking

Doshi, Umal H.; Bhad, Wasundhara A.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.08.033

Cited by 15 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Posterior bite blocks at 5 or 10 mm in height (PBB5, PBB10) [ 20 ] and magnetic bite blocks (MBB) [ 21 ] were tested. The effects of MBB were compared versus spring-loaded bite blocks (SLBB) [ 18 , 23 ], PBB [ 37 ], and rapid molar intruder (RMI) [ 24 ].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mean correction of the overbite achieved with bite blocks varied from 2.25 to 4.58 mm for PBB [ 19 , 20 , 37 ], from 1.3 to 3.59 mm for SLBB [ 18 , 19 , 23 ], from 2.00 to 4.9 mm for MBB [ 17 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 35 ], and from 3.1 to 4.55 for RMI [ 22 , 24 ].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eighteen studies did not analyze treatment stability [ 16 , 17 , 19 – 22 , 24 , 27 – 29 , 32 – 34 , 37 – 41 ]. Three studies found insignificant or absent relapse [ 23 , 31 , 35 ].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research quality was low in ten studies [ 16 , 17 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 27 , 29 , 38 , 39 ] and medium in 14 (Table 3 ).…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to greater dentoalveolar and skeletal effects, MBB proved to be more effective than SLBB [ 18 , 23 ], PBB [ 17 ], and RMI [ 24 ].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Systematic review for orthodontic and orthopedic treatments for anterior open bite in the mixed dentition

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe treatment options for the early treatment of anterior open bite are still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the actual available evidence on treatments of anterior open bite in the mixed dentition in order to assess the effectiveness of the early treatment in reducing open bite, the most efficacious treatment strategy and the stability of the results.Materials and methodsA literature survey was done on November 15, 2015, by means of appropriate Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, VHL, and WEB OF SCIENCE.Randomized clinical trials and studies with a control group (treated or untreated) were then selected by two authors. Trials including patients with syndromes or in the permanent dentition and studies concerning treatment with extractions, full-fixed appliances, or surgery were not considered.Full articles were retrieved for abstracts or titles that met the initial inclusion criteria or lacked sufficient detail for immediate exclusion.ResultsTwo thousand five hundred sixty-nine studies about open bite were available; the search strategy selected 240 of them.Twenty-four articles have been judged suitably for the final review, and their relevant data were analyzed.DiscussionAlthough this review confirms the effectiveness of early treatment of open bite, particularly when no-compliance strategies are employed, meta-analysis was unfeasible due to lack of standardization, important methodological limitations, and shortcomings of the studies.ConclusionsA more robust approach to trial design in terms of methodology and error analysis is needed. Besides, more studies with longer periods of follow-up are required.

show abstract