Stability of Class II Malocclusion Treatment with the Austro Repositioner Followed by Fixed Appliances in Brachyfacial Patients

Abstract

One of the goals of functional-appliance devices is to modify the vertical growth pattern, solving several kinds of malocclusion. This study aimed to evaluate Class II malocclusion treatment’s stability with Austro Repositioner, followed by fixed appliances, and assess its capacity to modify vertical dimensions in brachyfacial patients. A test group of 30 patients (16 boys and 14 girls, mean 11.9 years old) with Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrognathism and brachyfacial pattern treated with Austro Repositioner and fixed appliance were compared to a matched untreated Class II control group of 30 patients (17 boys and 13 girls, mean age 11.7 years old). Lateral cephalograms were taken at T1 (initial records), T2 (end of treatment), and T3 (one year after treatment). Statistical comparisons were performed with a paired-sample t-test and two-sample t-tests. Significant improvements in the skeletal Class II relationship were observed in the treated group. The ANB angle decreased (4.75°), the SNB angle increased (3.92°), and the total mandibular length (Co-Pg) increased (8.18 mm) (p < 0.001). Vertical dimensions were also significantly modified, the FMA angle increased (3.94°), LAFH-distance increased (3.15 mm), and overbite decreased (3.35 mm). These changes remained stable one year after treatment. The Austro Repositioner was adequate for treating the skeletal Class II malocclusion resulting from the mandible retrusion in brachyfacial patients.

Behavior of the mandibular length in class II non-growing patients treated with jaw functional orthopedics

“…None of the papers recovered can be entirely compared with the present studies recovered investigated responses of Planas appliances, neither in non growing individuals as done in this investigation. Despite of that, results found in the literature consulted [4,5,13,[18][19][20]22] are similar to those found on the current investigation.…”

“…Mandibular growth due to JFO treatment of Class II with mandibular forward positioning in growing individuals is shown in the literature [4,5,13,[18][19][20]22]. The type of appliance used in the class II treatment influences organism responses in its own way [22].…”

“…For instance, if the mandible reaches the correct orthopedic position in 8 months it should be kept for 16 months more to complete osseous remodeling and central nervous system works properly in the new mandibular position. Due to limitation of observation time between T0 and T1, treatment stability was not studied in this investigation, but Class II treatment with MPC (mandibular forward positioning) in brachyfacial growing stability was reported [13]. Investigation about stability of non-growing class II patients treated with mandibular advancement is necessary.…”

“…As early as 1902, Robin reported improvement of overjet advancing the mandible with his activator. Austro-Martinez et al [13] reported not only Class II malocclusion correction but also stability of mandibular advancement one year after treatment.…”