Evaluation of Dentoskeletal Changes Accompanying the Treatment of Class II Malocclusion by Advansync Appliance versus Intermaxillary Coil Spring Mechanics | ||||
| Al-Azhar Dental Journal for Girls | ||||
| Article 8, Volume 5, Issue 4, October 2018, Page 373-383 PDF (615.74 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjg.2018.20023 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| May H. EL Mofty1; Samir A Ibrahim2; Ossama S. EL-Shall3; Wael A. Tawfik4 | ||||
| 1Assistant Lecturer of Orthodontics, Orthodontic Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, October University for Modern Sciences and Arts | ||||
| 2Professor and head of Orthodontic Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al- Azhar University. | ||||
| 3Professor of Oral Medicine, Periodontology, Diagnosis and Radiology Department and Vice Dean of Postgraduate Affairs, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University | ||||
| 4Professor and head of Orthodontic Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, October University for Modern Sciences and Arts. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Objectives: The present study was designed to determine and compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue effects produced by the Advansync functional appliance and intermaxillary NiTi coil springs in the treatment of growing patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion. Subjects and methods: A sample of 19 growing patients, as evaluated by hand wrist radiographs, with age range 12-15 years was divided into two groups. Group I patients were treated with the Advansync appliance (n=10) and Group II patients were treated using intermaxillary NiTi coil springs (n=9). The study was conducted using lateral cephalograms taken before appliance insertion and immediately after appliance removal. Treatment changes were evaluated for each group and compared between both groups. Data were analyzed using Paired sample t-test for each group and Independent t-test for comparing groups together. Results: The use of Advansync and fixed appliances (Group I) resulted in significant decrease in SNA and ANB angles (p≤0.001). Dental changes included retroclination of maxillary teeth, proclination and intrusion of mandibular teeth as well as mesialization of mandibular molars (p≤0.001). On the other hand, SNA and ANB showed non-significant changes for patients treated with intermaxillary NiTi coil springs (Group II) (p≥0.05). While dental changes included retroclination of maxillary teeth, proclination and intrusion of mandibular teeth as well as mesialization of mandibular molars (p≤0.001) which were greater in Group II than Group I. The effects of both treatment modalities showed significant increases in total mandibular length and anterior facial height (p≤0.01 and p≤0.05) with no significant difference between both groups. Lower lip to PtV was theonly soft tissue measurement with significant changes (p≤0.05) for each group and was non-significant when the two groups were compared together. Conclusion: Both treatment modalities were effective in treating Class II division 1 malocclusion. The Advansync appliance produced its effect through maxillary growth restriction and dentoalveolar changes. While the effects of intermaxillary NiTi coil springs were only dentoalveolar, but more than the Advansync appliance. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| class II division 1; Advansync; intermaxillary coil springs; fixed functional appliances | ||||
| References | ||||
|
Cozza P, Baccett Ti, Franchi L, De Toffol L and McNamara JA. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006; 129:1-12. 2. Proffit WR, Fields HW and Sarver DM. Orthodontic treatment planning: limitations, controversies and special problems. In: Contemporary Orthodontics. St. Louis: Mosby, 2007: 296-297. 3. Dolce C, Mansour DA, McGorray SP and Wheelerd TT. Intrarater agreement about the etiology of Class II malocclusion and treatment approach. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2012; 141:17-23. 4. Cassidy SE, Jackson SR, Turpin DL, Ramsay DS, Spiekerman C and Huang GJ. Classification and treatment of Class II subdivision malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014; 145: 443- 451. 5. Spalding P. Treatment of class II malocclusions. In: Bishara S. Textbook of orthodontics. St. Louis: WB Saunders, 2001: 351-352. 6. Papadopoulos MA. Non-compliance approaches for management of class II malocclusion. In: Skeletal Anchorage in Orthodontic Treatment of Class II Malocclusion: contemporary applications of orthodontic implants, miniscrew implants and miniplates. St. Louis: Mosby, 2015: 6-11. 7. Singh VP, Pokhrael PR, Pariekh K, Roy DK, Singla A and Biswas KP. Elastics in orthodontics: a review. Health Renaiss. 2012; 10: 49-56. 8. Tsarudis CS and Pancherz H. “Effective” TMJ and chin position changes in Class II treatment. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78: 813-818. 9. Yildirim E and Karacay S. Comparison of dentofacial effect of the Eureka Spring and intermaxillary elastics in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Gulhane Med J. 2015; 57: 284-289. 10. Pithon MM, Mendes JL, Silva CA, Santos RL and Coqueiro RS. Force decay of latex and non-latex intermaxillary elastics: a clinical study. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38:39-43. 11. Borges JC, Gallo DB, Santana RM, Filho OG, Camargo ES and Tanaka OM. Influence of different beverages on the force degradation of intermaxillary elastics: an in vitro study. J Appl Oral Sci. 2013; 21: 145-149. 12. Santos RL, Pithon MM, Martins FO, Romanos MTV and Ruellas ACO. Cytotoxicity of the latex and non- latex orthodontic elastomeric ligatures on L929 mouse fibroblasts. Braz Dent J. 2010; 21: 205-210. 13. Colomer SM, Hernandez PG, Romano FL, De Rossi A, Fukada SY, Filho PN, Consolaro A, Silva RAB and Silva LAB. Latex and non-latex orthodontic elastics: in vitro and in vivo evaluations of tissue compatibility and surface structure. Angle Orthod. 2016; 86: 278-284. 14. Pires BU, Souza RE, Filho MV, Degan VV, Santos JCB and Tubel CAM. Force degradation of different elastomeric chains and nickel titanium closed springs. Braz J Oral Sci. 2011; 10:167-170. 15. Chaudhari CV and Tarvade SM. Comparison of rate of retraction and anchorage loss using nickel titanium closed coil springs and elastomeric chain during the en-masse retraction: a clinical study. J Orthod Res. 2015; 3:129- 133. 16. Papadopoulos MA. Orthodontic Treatment of the Class II Non-compliant Patient: Current Principles and Techniques. Edingurgh: Mosby, 2006: 26. Mcsherry PF and Bradley H. Class II correction-reducing patient compliance: a review of the available techniques. J Orthod. 2000; 27: 219-225. 18. Vanlaecken R, Williams MO, Razmus T, Gunel E, Martin C and Ngan P. Class III correction using an inter-arch spring-loaded module. Prog Orthod. 2014; 15:1-11. 19. Lombardo L, Carlucci A, Cervinara F and Siciliani G.A new, non-compliance Class II correction strategy using nickeltitanium coilsprings.J World Fed Orthod.2015;4:40-49. 20. Southard TS, Marshall SD, Allareddy V, Uribe LMM and Holton NE. An evidence- based comparison of headgear and functional appliance therapy for the correction of Class II malocclusions. Semin Orthod. 2013; 19: 174–195. 21. Littlewood SJ. Functional appliances. In: Mitchell L, An Introduction to Orthodontics. United Kingdom: Oxford, 2013:248-249. 22. Nanda R and Kapila S. Current Therapy in Orthodontics. 1st edition. St.Louis: Mosby; 2010: 103–114. 23. Ritto AK and Ferreira AP. Fixed functional appliances- A classification. Funct Orthod. 2000; 17: 12-30. 24. McNamara JA and Howe RP. Clinical management of the acrylic splint Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1988; 94:142-149. 25. Barnetta GA, Higginsb DW, Majorc PW and Mird CF. Immediate skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crown- or banded type Herbst appliance on class II division 1 malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78: 361-369. 26. Baysal A and Uysal T. Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod.2014; 36:164-172. 27. Manni A, Pasini M, Mazzotta L, Mutinelli S, Nuzzo C, Grassi FR and Cozzani M. Comparison between an acrylic splint Herbst and an acrylic splint miniscew-Herbst for mandibular incisor proclination control. Int J Dent. 2014;1-7. 28. Al-Jewair TS, Preston C. B, Moll EM and Dischinger T. A comparison of the MARA and the Advansync functional appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82: 907–914. 29. Jayachandran S, Wiltshire WA, Hayasaki SM and Pinheiro FHSL. Comparison of Advansync and intermaxillary elastics in the correction of Class II malocclusions: A retrospective clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016; 150: 979-988. 30. Ateia HA: Evaluation of the role of Advansync appliance in treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion. Master thesis, AL-Azhar University Girls’ Branch, Egypt 2013. 31. Atik E, Guven BA and Kocadereli I. Soft tissue effects of three different Class II/1- camouflage treatment strategies. J Orofac Orthop. 2017; 78:153-165. 32. Nishanth B, Gopinath A, Ahmed S, Patil N, Srinivas K and Chaitanya A. Cephalometric and computed tomography evaluation of dentoalveolar/soft-tissue change and alteration in condyle-glenoid fossa relationship using the Power Scope: A new fixed functional appliance for Class II correction- A clinical study.Int JOrthod Rehabil.2017; 8:41-50 | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 863 PDF Download: 625 |
||||
