IADR Abstract Archives
Class 2 treatment with fixed functional appliances; Are they orthopedic or camouflaging?
Objectives: This study aimed to compare skeletal and dental effects produced by MPA , Twin-Force and Powerscope fixed functional appliances in patients with class II malocclusion.
Methods: The study was conducted on 30 orthodontic patients with a mean age of 15.39 ± 1.25 years old. They were randomly divided into 3 equal groups; Group 1: MPA group. Group 2: Twin-Force group. Group 3: Powerscope group. The patients had skeletal Class 2 of ANB angle greater than 4° due to the retrognathic mandible. Lateral cephalograms made before (T1) and after (T2) installation of the appliances. Paired t-test was used to study the changes after treatment. Intergroup comparison was performed with one-way ANOVA.
Results: The treated groups had similar dentoskeletal changes: backward rotation of the mandible; increase in lower anterior facial height; labial tipping and intrusion of the lower incisors; improvements of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite, and molar relationship; and retrusion of the upper lip. The mandibular incisors exhibited greater protrusion in group 1 compared to the other groups. Twin-Force group presented mild protrusion of the lower lip, where, groups 1 and 3 showed more protrusion.
Conclusions: (1) Fixed functional appliances provides an effective tool and showed similar changes in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. (2) the changes regarding three appliances were mainly dental with lesser skeletal effects. (3) The fixed functional appliances promote restriction of anterior maxillary displacement with significant forward mandibular repositioning that reduces skeletal convexity.
Methods: The study was conducted on 30 orthodontic patients with a mean age of 15.39 ± 1.25 years old. They were randomly divided into 3 equal groups; Group 1: MPA group. Group 2: Twin-Force group. Group 3: Powerscope group. The patients had skeletal Class 2 of ANB angle greater than 4° due to the retrognathic mandible. Lateral cephalograms made before (T1) and after (T2) installation of the appliances. Paired t-test was used to study the changes after treatment. Intergroup comparison was performed with one-way ANOVA.
Results: The treated groups had similar dentoskeletal changes: backward rotation of the mandible; increase in lower anterior facial height; labial tipping and intrusion of the lower incisors; improvements of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite, and molar relationship; and retrusion of the upper lip. The mandibular incisors exhibited greater protrusion in group 1 compared to the other groups. Twin-Force group presented mild protrusion of the lower lip, where, groups 1 and 3 showed more protrusion.
Conclusions: (1) Fixed functional appliances provides an effective tool and showed similar changes in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. (2) the changes regarding three appliances were mainly dental with lesser skeletal effects. (3) The fixed functional appliances promote restriction of anterior maxillary displacement with significant forward mandibular repositioning that reduces skeletal convexity.