Affiliation:
1. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Dental School of Foggia, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy
2. Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, Dental School of L’Aquila, University of L’Aquila, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
Abstract
(1) Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Rapid Maxillary Expander (RME) II System compared to a Herbst appliance and a control group in the treatment of class II skeletal malocclusions in growing patients. (2) Methods: A total of 30 class II patients treated using the RME II System (group R) were compared with 30 patients treated with a Herbst appliance (group H) and 30 untreated class II children (group C). Cephalograms were compared at the start (T0) and after 24 months (T1). Nine cephalometric parameters were analyzed: SN-MP, SN-PO, ANB, AR-GO-ME, AR-GO-N, N-GO-ME, SN-PP, LFH, CO-GN, 1+SN, IMPA, OVERJET, and OVERBITE. Since the variables failed the normality test, a Wilcoxon test was performed for a pairwise comparison of the cephalometric measurements taken at T0 (pre-treatment) and at T1 (post-treatment). ANOVA with Tukey post hoc correction was used to evaluate the differences among the groups. (3) Results: ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference for all analyzed variables except for AR-GO-ME, AR-GO-N, and N-GO-ME. Post hoc Tukey’s HSD test showed the following difference: the SN-PO angle in group H was 3.59° greater than in group R; the LFH in group H was 4.13 mm greater than in group R. The mandibular length (CO-GN) in group H was 3.94 mm greater than in group R; IMPA in group H was 6.4° greater than in group R; and the ANB angle in group H was 1.47° greater than in group R. (4) Conclusions: The RME II System is an effective therapeutic device for class II skeletal malocclusion treatment in growing patients.
Reference37 articles.
1. Classification of malocclusion;Angle;Dent. Cosmos,1899
2. Prevalence of malocclusion and related oral habits in 5- to 6-year-old children;Nayme;Oral. Health Prev. Dent.,2012
3. Muscle response to the twin-block appliance: An electromyographic study of the masseter and anterior temporal muscles;Aggarwal;Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop.,1999
4. Predicting functional appliance treatment outcome in Class II malocclusions—A review;Barton;Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop.,1997
5. An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth;Baccetti;Angle Orthod.,2002