Therapeutic effectiveness of AdvanSync2 at different stages of skeletal maturity in skeletal Class II malocclusion: A single-blind clinical trial

Raghav, Pradeep; Mathur, Shivani; Kumar, Ashok; Mohan, Stuti

doi:10.25259/apos_29_2020

Cited by 5 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[16] and Raghav et al [10]. This contrasts with the ndings of AI-Jewair [8] and Jayachandran et al [17].…”

Section: Skeletal Changesmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…[8] and Raghav et al [10], contradicted the ndings of Hemanth et al [15] who noticed non-signi cant effects of AdvanSync on the maxilla. The reason for these con icting results might be due to differences in the methodology.…”

Section: Skeletal Changesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…However, these studies compared AdvanSync2 with MARA and Class II elastics. The probable reason for the better skeletal effects produced by AdvanSync2 might be its early placement in the treatment at the time of initial bonding, better utilizing the growth of the subjects, whereas PowerScope required placement of heavy stainless steel wires, that needed 5-6months of xed appliance treatment, leading to loss of effective utilization of growth in patients [7,10]. This was con rmed by the different growth statuses of the patients in the treatment groups at T1.…”

Section: Skeletal Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, few studies have examined the impact of AdvanSync2 in the literature, most of which are case reports [8][9][10][11], and none have compared the effects of AdvanSync2 with those of a PowerScope xed functional appliance. Therefore, this study was designed to assess and compare the dental, skeletal, and soft tissue effects of AdvanSync2 with those of PowerScope.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparative evaluation of skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes in skeletal class II treatment using PowerScope and AdvanSync2–A single center, retrospective study

Gupta,

Bhambri,

Sharma

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Fixed functional appliances are used for correcting Skeletal Class II due to retrognathic mandible. Objectives: The current study's goal was to assess and contrast the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes produced by PowerScope and AdvanSync2. The null hypothesis was that there were no significant differences in the treatment effects of both the appliances. Material and methods: A retrospective study was conducted on growing 75 female subjects with skeletal class II malocclusion, divided into 3 groups: Group 1: 25 Subjects of AdvanSync2 (Mean age- 12.61±1.52years); Group 2: 25 subjects of PowerScope (Mean age- 12.23±1.32years) and Group 3: untreated class II control sample of 25 subjects (Mean age- 12.91±0.92years). Lateral cephalograms were traced at T0 (pretreatment) and T1 (post functional) for measuring various skeletal, dental, and soft tissue parameters. ANOVA and Post Hoc Tukey test was used for comparison between the groups. Results: Statistically significant changes were seen in skeletal, dental, and soft tissue parameters with both appliances compared with the control group. AdvanSync2 had statistically significant restrictive effects on the maxilla (p<0.05), produced greater mandibular advancement, retraction and extrusion of the upper incisors, proclination of the lower incisors, overjet reduction, and distalization of the upper molars, whereas PowerScope had non-significant effects on the maxilla and mainly produced dentoalveolar changes with good overbite reduction. Both appliances greatly improved the soft tissue profile of the patients compared with that of the control group. Clinical implications: AdvanSync 2 is recommended for treating Skeletal Class II for better skeletal effects. Conclusions: The null hypothesis was rejected in this study. AdvanSync 2 produced better skeletal effects than PowerScope, which displayed better dentoalveolar changes.

show abstract

“…[16] and Raghav et al [10]. This contrasts with the ndings of AI-Jewair [8] and Jayachandran et al [17].…”

Section: Skeletal Changesmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Skeletal Changesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Skeletal Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative evaluation of skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes in skeletal class II treatment using PowerScope and AdvanSync2–A single center, retrospective study

Gupta,

Bhambri,

Sharma

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Leveling and arch alignment takes place simultaneously with correction of mandibular retrusion, helping to reduce total treatment time. 24 …”

Section: Clinical Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of stress distribution patterns produced with the Advansync2 class II corrector - A finite element analysis

Mukhopadhyay¹,

Thakur²,

Verma³

et al. 2023

Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advansync in management of class II malocclusion: A systematic review

Lodd,

Ravindranath V.K,

Gheware

et al. 2024

JCO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Class II malocclusions are of interest to practising orthodontists since they constitute a significant percentage of the cases they treat. In individuals with Class II malocclusions, there is an anteroposterior discrepancy between the maxillary and mandibular dentitions, which is usually accompanied by a skeletal discrepancy. In such malocclusions, a functional appliance (myofunctional or fixed functional) is chosen as a treatment method depending on the severity and need of the particular case. This systematic review aims to evaluate the dental-alveolar, skeletal and soft tissue changes with the use of Advansync™ (A Class II corrector/ fixed functional appliance) in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. A literature search was done on Pubmed, EbscoHost , Google Scholar, Science Direct. This was conducted by two reviewers independently and any conflicts in results were managed through discussion. A Risk of Bias was done for the final articles included in the study. A total of 3,099 records were identified while searching through the database based on Mesh terms and search strategies. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria’s the total articles which were eligible for the systematic review were six. As the study was specific in terms of age and gender there was a high risk of selection bias but low risk of reporting bias.Out of the 6 studies, 5 had a low risk of bias and based on their cumulative findings, the effectiveness of Advansync is similar to those of other Class II correctors. The advantage of Advansync over other correctors is that the appliance saves treatment time and can be incorporated from the second month of treatment thereby shortening the duration of treatment.Fixed Class II correctors are used widely in Orthodontics. The selection of the appropriate appliance for the patient is the need of the hour. Thus, this systematic review gives us an insight on the use of Advansync in Class II correction.

show abstract

Therapeutic effectiveness of AdvanSync2 at different stages of skeletal maturity in skeletal Class II malocclusion: A single-blind clinical trial

Cited by 5 publications

References 22 publications

Comparative evaluation of skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes in skeletal class II treatment using PowerScope and AdvanSync2–A single center, retrospective study

Comparative evaluation of skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes in skeletal class II treatment using PowerScope and AdvanSync2–A single center, retrospective study

Evaluation of stress distribution patterns produced with the Advansync2 class II corrector - A finite element analysis

Advansync in management of class II malocclusion: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About