Timing of Class II treatment: Skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment

Introduction: Previous studies reported small but significant skeletal changes as a result of early treatment of Class II malocclusion with headgear and functional appliances. In this study, we report on the skeletal changes for 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. Methods: This w...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics 2007-10, Vol.132 (4), p.481-489
Hauptverfasser: Dolce, Calogero, McGorray, Susan P, Brazeau, Lisamarie, King, Gregory J, Wheeler, Timothy T
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 489
container_issue 4
container_start_page 481
container_title American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics
container_volume 132
creator Dolce, Calogero
McGorray, Susan P
Brazeau, Lisamarie
King, Gregory J
Wheeler, Timothy T
description Introduction: Previous studies reported small but significant skeletal changes as a result of early treatment of Class II malocclusion with headgear and functional appliances. In this study, we report on the skeletal changes for 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. Methods: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted sy the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Florida between 1990 and 2000. A total of 261 subjects demonstrating at least a one half-cusp Class II molar relationship and meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study and had at least 1 follow-up visit. During phase 1, 86 subjects were treated with a bionator, 95 were treated with a headgear/biteplane, and 80 served as the observation group. For phase 2, all subjects were then treated with full orthodontics appliances. Skeletal changes were monitored with cephalograms taken at baseline, at the end of early Class II treatment or observation baseline, at the beginning of fixed appliances, and at end of orthodontic treatment. Results: Overall skeletal changes at the end of phase 1 treatment were as follows: (1) SNA angle increased in the bionator (0.51) and the observation groups (0.67), whereas it decreased (–0.50) in the headgear/biteplane group; (2) SNB angle increased in the bionator (1.36) and the observation groups (0.84), whereas it remained unchanged (0.19) in the headgear/biteplane group; (3) ANB angle decreased in the bionator (–0.85) and the headgear/biteplane groups (–0.72), and was unchanged in the observation group; and (4) the mandibular plane angle increased (1.30) only in the headgear/biteplane group. By the end of full orthodontic treatment, the skeletal differences in all measurements for all 3 groups were within 1°. Linear regression models showed that, during phase 1, baseline value and treatment group were significant. However, when the entire treatment period was considered, treatment group had no effect. Conclusions: There is temporary skeletal change as a result of phase I treatment with both appliances but no detectible skeletal difference between 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion by the end of full orthodontic treatment.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.046
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68347208</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0889540607004982</els_id><sourcerecordid>68347208</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-ac8dbc8a4ee6f520c624bfa8a73579acefb32803461f10bb9dbedb70be54f2b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkVGL1DAQx4Mo3t7pJxAkT761TtK0TQWFY9Fz4cCHW3wNk3R6l17brElXuG9v6y4Kvvg08_D_zTC_YeyNgFyAqN73OfahDbkEKHPQOajqGdsIaOqsqkv5nG1A6yYrFVQX7DKlHgAaJeEluxB1I6EEsWHf93700z0PHd8OmBLf7fgcCeeRpvkDv3ukgWYcuHvA6Z4Sd2E8YFwJkR0eMBHHqeXy3P8hX7EXHQ6JXp_rFdt_-bzffs1uv93stte3mVNCzhk63VqnURFVXSnBVVLZDjXWRVk36KizhdRQqEp0AqxtWkutrcFSqTppiyv27jT2EMOPI6XZjD45GgacKByTqXShagl6CRanoIshpUidOUQ_YnwyAsxq0_Tmt02z2jSgzWJzod6exx_tSO1f5qxvCXw8BWi58aenaJLzNDlqfSQ3mzb4_yz49A_vBj95h8MjPVHqwzFOiz4jTJIGzN360PWfUAOoRsviF0SWnC8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68347208</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Timing of Class II treatment: Skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Dolce, Calogero ; McGorray, Susan P ; Brazeau, Lisamarie ; King, Gregory J ; Wheeler, Timothy T</creator><creatorcontrib>Dolce, Calogero ; McGorray, Susan P ; Brazeau, Lisamarie ; King, Gregory J ; Wheeler, Timothy T</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction: Previous studies reported small but significant skeletal changes as a result of early treatment of Class II malocclusion with headgear and functional appliances. In this study, we report on the skeletal changes for 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. Methods: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted sy the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Florida between 1990 and 2000. A total of 261 subjects demonstrating at least a one half-cusp Class II molar relationship and meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study and had at least 1 follow-up visit. During phase 1, 86 subjects were treated with a bionator, 95 were treated with a headgear/biteplane, and 80 served as the observation group. For phase 2, all subjects were then treated with full orthodontics appliances. Skeletal changes were monitored with cephalograms taken at baseline, at the end of early Class II treatment or observation baseline, at the beginning of fixed appliances, and at end of orthodontic treatment. Results: Overall skeletal changes at the end of phase 1 treatment were as follows: (1) SNA angle increased in the bionator (0.51) and the observation groups (0.67), whereas it decreased (–0.50) in the headgear/biteplane group; (2) SNB angle increased in the bionator (1.36) and the observation groups (0.84), whereas it remained unchanged (0.19) in the headgear/biteplane group; (3) ANB angle decreased in the bionator (–0.85) and the headgear/biteplane groups (–0.72), and was unchanged in the observation group; and (4) the mandibular plane angle increased (1.30) only in the headgear/biteplane group. By the end of full orthodontic treatment, the skeletal differences in all measurements for all 3 groups were within 1°. Linear regression models showed that, during phase 1, baseline value and treatment group were significant. However, when the entire treatment period was considered, treatment group had no effect. Conclusions: There is temporary skeletal change as a result of phase I treatment with both appliances but no detectible skeletal difference between 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion by the end of full orthodontic treatment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0889-5406</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6752</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.046</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17920501</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Activator Appliances ; Age Factors ; Analysis of Variance ; Cephalometry ; Child ; Dentistry ; Extraoral Traction Appliances ; Female ; Humans ; Linear Models ; Male ; Malocclusion, Angle Class II - therapy ; Orthodontics, Corrective - instrumentation ; Orthodontics, Corrective - methods ; Prospective Studies ; Single-Blind Method ; Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><ispartof>American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 2007-10, Vol.132 (4), p.481-489</ispartof><rights>American Association of Orthodontists</rights><rights>2007 American Association of Orthodontists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-ac8dbc8a4ee6f520c624bfa8a73579acefb32803461f10bb9dbedb70be54f2b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-ac8dbc8a4ee6f520c624bfa8a73579acefb32803461f10bb9dbedb70be54f2b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.046$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,27929,27930,46000</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17920501$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dolce, Calogero</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGorray, Susan P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brazeau, Lisamarie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Gregory J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Timothy T</creatorcontrib><title>Timing of Class II treatment: Skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment</title><title>American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics</title><addtitle>Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop</addtitle><description>Introduction: Previous studies reported small but significant skeletal changes as a result of early treatment of Class II malocclusion with headgear and functional appliances. In this study, we report on the skeletal changes for 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. Methods: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted sy the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Florida between 1990 and 2000. A total of 261 subjects demonstrating at least a one half-cusp Class II molar relationship and meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study and had at least 1 follow-up visit. During phase 1, 86 subjects were treated with a bionator, 95 were treated with a headgear/biteplane, and 80 served as the observation group. For phase 2, all subjects were then treated with full orthodontics appliances. Skeletal changes were monitored with cephalograms taken at baseline, at the end of early Class II treatment or observation baseline, at the beginning of fixed appliances, and at end of orthodontic treatment. Results: Overall skeletal changes at the end of phase 1 treatment were as follows: (1) SNA angle increased in the bionator (0.51) and the observation groups (0.67), whereas it decreased (–0.50) in the headgear/biteplane group; (2) SNB angle increased in the bionator (1.36) and the observation groups (0.84), whereas it remained unchanged (0.19) in the headgear/biteplane group; (3) ANB angle decreased in the bionator (–0.85) and the headgear/biteplane groups (–0.72), and was unchanged in the observation group; and (4) the mandibular plane angle increased (1.30) only in the headgear/biteplane group. By the end of full orthodontic treatment, the skeletal differences in all measurements for all 3 groups were within 1°. Linear regression models showed that, during phase 1, baseline value and treatment group were significant. However, when the entire treatment period was considered, treatment group had no effect. Conclusions: There is temporary skeletal change as a result of phase I treatment with both appliances but no detectible skeletal difference between 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion by the end of full orthodontic treatment.</description><subject>Activator Appliances</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Cephalometry</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Extraoral Traction Appliances</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Linear Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Malocclusion, Angle Class II - therapy</subject><subject>Orthodontics, Corrective - instrumentation</subject><subject>Orthodontics, Corrective - methods</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Single-Blind Method</subject><subject>Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><issn>0889-5406</issn><issn>1097-6752</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkVGL1DAQx4Mo3t7pJxAkT761TtK0TQWFY9Fz4cCHW3wNk3R6l17brElXuG9v6y4Kvvg08_D_zTC_YeyNgFyAqN73OfahDbkEKHPQOajqGdsIaOqsqkv5nG1A6yYrFVQX7DKlHgAaJeEluxB1I6EEsWHf93700z0PHd8OmBLf7fgcCeeRpvkDv3ukgWYcuHvA6Z4Sd2E8YFwJkR0eMBHHqeXy3P8hX7EXHQ6JXp_rFdt_-bzffs1uv93stte3mVNCzhk63VqnURFVXSnBVVLZDjXWRVk36KizhdRQqEp0AqxtWkutrcFSqTppiyv27jT2EMOPI6XZjD45GgacKByTqXShagl6CRanoIshpUidOUQ_YnwyAsxq0_Tmt02z2jSgzWJzod6exx_tSO1f5qxvCXw8BWi58aenaJLzNDlqfSQ3mzb4_yz49A_vBj95h8MjPVHqwzFOiz4jTJIGzN360PWfUAOoRsviF0SWnC8</recordid><startdate>20071001</startdate><enddate>20071001</enddate><creator>Dolce, Calogero</creator><creator>McGorray, Susan P</creator><creator>Brazeau, Lisamarie</creator><creator>King, Gregory J</creator><creator>Wheeler, Timothy T</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20071001</creationdate><title>Timing of Class II treatment: Skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment</title><author>Dolce, Calogero ; McGorray, Susan P ; Brazeau, Lisamarie ; King, Gregory J ; Wheeler, Timothy T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-ac8dbc8a4ee6f520c624bfa8a73579acefb32803461f10bb9dbedb70be54f2b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Activator Appliances</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Cephalometry</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Extraoral Traction Appliances</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Linear Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Malocclusion, Angle Class II - therapy</topic><topic>Orthodontics, Corrective - instrumentation</topic><topic>Orthodontics, Corrective - methods</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Single-Blind Method</topic><topic>Statistics, Nonparametric</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dolce, Calogero</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGorray, Susan P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brazeau, Lisamarie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Gregory J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Timothy T</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dolce, Calogero</au><au>McGorray, Susan P</au><au>Brazeau, Lisamarie</au><au>King, Gregory J</au><au>Wheeler, Timothy T</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Timing of Class II treatment: Skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment</atitle><jtitle>American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop</addtitle><date>2007-10-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>132</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>481</spage><epage>489</epage><pages>481-489</pages><issn>0889-5406</issn><eissn>1097-6752</eissn><abstract>Introduction: Previous studies reported small but significant skeletal changes as a result of early treatment of Class II malocclusion with headgear and functional appliances. In this study, we report on the skeletal changes for 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. Methods: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted sy the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Florida between 1990 and 2000. A total of 261 subjects demonstrating at least a one half-cusp Class II molar relationship and meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study and had at least 1 follow-up visit. During phase 1, 86 subjects were treated with a bionator, 95 were treated with a headgear/biteplane, and 80 served as the observation group. For phase 2, all subjects were then treated with full orthodontics appliances. Skeletal changes were monitored with cephalograms taken at baseline, at the end of early Class II treatment or observation baseline, at the beginning of fixed appliances, and at end of orthodontic treatment. Results: Overall skeletal changes at the end of phase 1 treatment were as follows: (1) SNA angle increased in the bionator (0.51) and the observation groups (0.67), whereas it decreased (–0.50) in the headgear/biteplane group; (2) SNB angle increased in the bionator (1.36) and the observation groups (0.84), whereas it remained unchanged (0.19) in the headgear/biteplane group; (3) ANB angle decreased in the bionator (–0.85) and the headgear/biteplane groups (–0.72), and was unchanged in the observation group; and (4) the mandibular plane angle increased (1.30) only in the headgear/biteplane group. By the end of full orthodontic treatment, the skeletal differences in all measurements for all 3 groups were within 1°. Linear regression models showed that, during phase 1, baseline value and treatment group were significant. However, when the entire treatment period was considered, treatment group had no effect. Conclusions: There is temporary skeletal change as a result of phase I treatment with both appliances but no detectible skeletal difference between 1-phase and 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion by the end of full orthodontic treatment.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>17920501</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.046</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0889-5406
ispartof American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 2007-10, Vol.132 (4), p.481-489
issn 0889-5406
1097-6752
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68347208
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Activator Appliances
Age Factors
Analysis of Variance
Cephalometry
Child
Dentistry
Extraoral Traction Appliances
Female
Humans
Linear Models
Male
Malocclusion, Angle Class II - therapy
Orthodontics, Corrective - instrumentation
Orthodontics, Corrective - methods
Prospective Studies
Single-Blind Method
Statistics, Nonparametric
title Timing of Class II treatment: Skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-15T19%3A14%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Timing%20of%20Class%20II%20treatment:%20Skeletal%20changes%20comparing%201-phase%20and%202-phase%20treatment&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20orthodontics%20and%20dentofacial%20orthopedics&rft.au=Dolce,%20Calogero&rft.date=2007-10-01&rft.volume=132&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=481&rft.epage=489&rft.pages=481-489&rft.issn=0889-5406&rft.eissn=1097-6752&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.046&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68347208%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68347208&rft_id=info:pmid/17920501&rft_els_id=S0889540607004982&rfr_iscdi=true