The Efficacy of the RME II System Compared with a Herbst Appliance in the Treatment of Class II Skeletal Malocclusion in Growing Patients: A Retrospective Study

Author:

Ciavarella Domenico1ORCID,Lorusso Mauro1ORCID,Fanelli Carlotta1,Ferrara Donatella1ORCID,Esposito Rosa2ORCID,Laurenziello Michele1ORCID,Esperouz Fariba1ORCID,Lo Russo Lucio1ORCID,Tepedino Michele2ORCID

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.

Publisher

MDPI AG

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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3