Occlusal Plane and Skeletal Changes After Cervical Headgear Treatment With and Without Lower Utility Arch in Class II Growing Patients.
Journal
The Journal of craniofacial surgery
ISSN: 1536-3732
Titre abrégé: J Craniofac Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2021
01 May 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
6
12
2020
medline:
18
11
2021
entrez:
5
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to investigate skeletal and dental changes affecting occlusal plane inclination after cervical headgear treatment with and without lower utility arch. In order to distinguish the orthodontic changes from natural growth a control group was employed.The sample of this study consisted by 20 Class II subjects (10 males, 10 females; mean age 8.54) treated by using cervical headgear, 19 class II children (19 males, 9 females; mean age 8.64) treated with cervical headgear and utility arch, and 21 Class II patients (11 males, 10 females; mean age 8.41) who had no therapy.Lateral head films were studied for all the patients before treatment (T1) and after therapy (T2) for all the treated groups and at the beginning and at the end of observational period for the control group; cephalometric analysis was carried out in order to seek for the modifications between time points and between groups.Means and standard deviation have been analyzed for all the groups. In order to compare the modification between the time points within the same group the ANOVA test was applied. The ANOVA test was used to compare the mean differences (T2-T1) of 3 groups.The study revealed that there were significant changes in occlusal plane inclination after the different treatment modalities employed instead control group. The treatment with cervical headgear and utility arch is more effective than cervical headgear alone in lowering occlusal plane posteriorly when it is compared with controls.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33278255
pii: 00001665-202105000-00081
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007305
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1152-1156Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Lamarque S. The importance of occlusal plane control during orthodontic mechanotherapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107:548–558.
Li JL, Kau C, Wang M. Changes of occlusal plane inclination after orthodontic treatment in different dentoskeletal frames. Prog Orthod 2014; 15:41.
Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships; their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948; 34:812–840.
Braun S, Kim K, Tomazic T, et al. The relationship of the glenoid fossa to the functional occlusal plane. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118:658–661.
Thayer TA. Effects of functional versus bisected occlusal planes on the Wits appraisal. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 97:422–426.
Ricketts RM, Bench RW, Hilgers JJ, et al. An overview of computerized cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 1972; 61:1–28.
Ricketts RM. A four-step method to distinguish orthodontic changes from natural growth. J Clin Orthod 1975; 9:208–215. 218–228.
Kattadiyil MT, Goodacre CJ, Naylor WP, et al. Esthetic smile preferences and the orientation of the maxillary occlusal plane. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 108:354–361.
Tanaka EM, Sato S. Longitudinal alteration of the occlusal plane and development of different dentoskeletal frames during growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 602 e1-11; discussion 602-3.
Ricketts RM. The biologic significance of the divine proportion and Fibonacci series. Am J Orthod 1982; 81:351–370.
Ricketts RM. The keystone triad: II. Growth, treatment, and clinical significance. Am J Orthod 1964; 50:728–750.
Kim KS, Sato SS. Mandibular rotation and occlusal development during facial growth. Int J Stomat Occl Med 2009; 2:122.
Takey JS, Sato AS. Occlusal guidance and occlusal planes at different ages and different occlusion groups follow the sequential occlusion concept. J Acad Clin Dent 2009; 29:35–40.
Sambataro S, Lorusso P, Caprioglio A, et al. Changes of occlusal plane in growing patients with increased vertical dimension during class II correction by using cervical headgear. J Craniofac Surg 2020; 31:172–177.
Bjork A. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod 1969; 55:585–599.
Ricketts RM. A study of changes in temporomandibular relations associated with the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod 1952; 1952:918–933.
Sambataro S, Bocchieri S, Bafumi L, et al. Elastics selector gauge as orthodontics device applied to inter-maxillary traction during malocclusion correction. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 2019; 4:63.
Ricketts RM. The influence of orthodontic treatment on facial growth and development. Angle Orthod 1960; 30:103–133.
Ricketts RM, Bench RW, Gugino CF, et al. Bioprogressive Therapy, Book One. Rocky Mount Orthod 1979; 1:367.
Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod 2005; 11:119–129.
Biondi K, Lorusso P, Fastuca R, et al. Evaluation of masseter muscle in different vertical skeletal patterns in growing patients. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2016; 17:47–52.
Caprioglio A, Bergamini C, Franchi L, et al. Prediction of Class II improvement after rapid maxillary expansion in early mixed dentition. Prog Orthod 2017; 18:9.
Caprioglio A, Fastuca R, Zecca PA, et al. Cellular midpalatal suture changes after rapid maxillary expansion in growing subjects: a case report. Int J Mol Sci 2017; 18:615.
Cassi D, De Biase C, Tonni I, et al. Natural position of the head: review of two-dimensional and three-dimensional methods of recording. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 54:233–240.
Zecca PA, Fastuca R, Beretta M, et al. Correlation assessment between three-dimensional facial soft tissue scan and lateral cephalometric radiography in orthodontic diagnosis. Int J Dent 2016; 2016:1473918.
Springate SD. The effect of sample size and bias on the reliability of estimates of error: a comparative study of Dahlberg's formula. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34:158–163.
Baumrind S, Korn EL, Isaacson RJ, et al. Quantitative analysis of the orthodontic and orthopedic effects of maxillary traction. Am J Orthod 1983; 84:384–398.
Caprioglio A, Castiglioni F, Sambataro S, et al. Changes in canine inclination after rapid and slow maxillary expansion compared to untreated controls. Orthod Craniofac Res 2020; 23:351–356.
Sambataro S, Fastuca R, Oppermann NJ, et al. Cephalometric changes in growing patients with increased vertical dimension treated with cervical headgear. J Orofac Orthop 2017; 78:312–320.
Cook AH, Sellke TA, BeGole EA. Control of the vertical dimension in Class II correction using a cervical headgear and lower utility arch in growing patients. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106:376–388.
Baumrind S, Korn EL, Molthen R, et al. Changes in facial dimensions associated with the use of forces to retract the maxilla. Am J Orthod V 80 1981; 17–30.
Godt A, Kalwitzki M, Goz G. Effects of cervical headgear on overbite against the background of existing growth patterns. A retrospective analysis of study casts. Angle Orthod 2007; 77:42–46.
Haralabakis NB, Sifakakis IB. The effect of cervical headgear on patients with high or low mandibular plane angles and the “myth” of posterior mandibular rotation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126:310–317.
Zervas ED, Galang-Boquiren MTS, Obrez A, et al. Change in the vertical dimension of Class II Division 1 patients after use of cervical or high-pull headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2016; 150:771–781.
Bench RW, Gugino CF, Hilgers JJ. Bioprogessive therapy. Part 4. J Clin Orthod 1978; 12:48–69.
Ricketts RM. Cephalometric analysis and synthesis. Angle Orthod 1961; 31:141–156.
Ulger G, Arun T, Sayinsu K, et al. The role of cervical headgear and lower utility arch in the control of the vertical dimension. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130:492–501.
Ricketts RM. A study of changes in temporomandibular relations associated with the treatment of Class II malocclusion (Angle). Am J Orthod 1952; 38:918–933.
Creekmore TD. Inhibition or stimulation of the vertical growth of the facial complex, its significance to treatment. Angle Orthod 1967; 37:285–297.
Schudy FF. Vertical growth versus anteroposterior growth as related to function and treatment. Angle Orthod 1964; 34:75–93.
Ricketts RM. Bioprogressive therapy as an answer to orthodontic needs Part I. Am J Orthod 1976; 70:241–268.
Ricketts RM. Bioprogressive therapy as an answer to orthodontic needs Part II. Am J Orthod 1976; 70:359–397.