Abstract
Abstract
Objective
To compare skeletal and dentoalveolar changes after orthodontic treatment of class II malocclusion in patients with hypodivergent and hyperdivergent growth patterns through cast splint fixed functional appliances (FFA).
Materials and methods
N = 42 out of n = 47 patients with mandibular plane angles < 34° or ≥ 34° were divided into a hypodivergent (n = 24) and a hyperdivergent (n = 18) group. All patients received a single-step mandibular advancement protocol through an FFA. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed after initial leveling and alignment (T1) and immediately after FFA removal (T2). The therapeutic effect was calculated through comparison with age-matched controls from a growth survey. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Results
Hypodivergent and hyperdivergent patients showed different treatment outcomes, but significant differences existed only for overbite and interincisal angle. Nearly all measurements suggested similar treatment-related changes for both groups with exception for dentoalveolar parameters.
Conclusion
Treatment with FFA causes similar skeletal and dentoalveolar effects in hypodivergent and in hyperdivergent patients. The correction of overjet and molar relationship is mainly caused by dentoalveolar changes.
Clinical relevance
Hyperdivergent patients do not respond unfavorably to FFA treatment compared to hypodivergent patients. Lower incisor protrusion occurs more pronounced in hypodivergent patients. The growth pattern ought to be considered when choosing FFA for class II treatment.
Funder
Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes und Medizinische Fakultät der Universität des Saarlandes
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference65 articles.
1. Moyers RE (1988) Handbook of orthodontics. Year Book Med Publishers, Chicago
2. McSherry PF, Bradley H (2000) Class II correction-reducing patient compliance: a review of the available techniques. J Orthod 27:219–225
3. Pancherz H, Ruf S (2008) The Herbst appliance: research-based clinical mangement. Quintessence, Chicago
4. Rogers K, Campbell PM, Tadlock L, Schneiderman E, Buschang PH (2018) Treatment changes of hypo- and hyperdivergent class II Herbst patients. Angle Orthod 88:3–9
5. Hourfar J, Ludwig B, Ruf S, Kinzinger G, Lisson J (2012) Fixed treatment of retroposition of the mandible - a literature review. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 44:183–192