Comparison of stepwise vs single-step advancement with the Functional Mandibular Advancer in Class II division 1 treatment
- PMID: 27366817
- PMCID: PMC8388596
- DOI: 10.2319/032416-241.1
Comparison of stepwise vs single-step advancement with the Functional Mandibular Advancer in Class II division 1 treatment
Abstract
Objective: To compare two groups of subjects at the peak of the pubertal growth period treated with the Functional Mandibular Advancer (FMA; Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany) appliance using either single-step or stepwise mandibular advancement.
Materials and methods: This study was conducted on 34 Class II division 1 malocclusion subjects at or just before the peak phase of pubertal growth as assessed by hand-wrist radiographs. Subjects were assigned to two groups of mandibular advancement, using matched randomization. Both groups were treated with the FMA. While the mandible was advanced to a super Class I molar relation in the single-step advancement group (SSG), patients in the stepwise mandibular advancement group (SWG) had a 4-mm initial bite advancement and subsequent 2-mm advancements at bimonthly intervals. The material consisted of lateral cephalograms taken before treatment and after 10 months of FMA treatment. Data were analyzed by means paired t-tests and an independent t-test.
Results: There were statistically significant changes in SNB, Pg horizontal, ANB, Co-Gn, and Co-Go measurements in both groups (P < .001); these changes were greater in the SWG with the exception of Co-Go (P < .05). While significant differences were found in U1-SN, IMPA, L6 horizontal, overjet, and overbite appraisals in each group (P < .001), these changes were comparable (P > .05).
Conclusion: Because of the higher rates of sagittal mandibular skeletal changes, FMA using stepwise advancement of the mandible might be the appliance of choice for treating Class II division 1 malocclusions.
Keywords: Angle Class II; Functional orthodontic appliance.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Stepwise versus single-step mandibular advancement with functional appliance in treating class II patients : A meta-analysis.J Orofac Orthop. 2020 Sep;81(5):311-327. doi: 10.1007/s00056-020-00229-3. Epub 2020 May 15. J Orofac Orthop. 2020. PMID: 32415333 Review. English.
-
Upper airway changes following single-step or stepwise advancement using the Functional Mandibular Advancer.J Orofac Orthop. 2016 Nov;77(6):454-462. doi: 10.1007/s00056-016-0062-0. Epub 2016 Oct 21. J Orofac Orthop. 2016. PMID: 27770150 Clinical Trial. English.
-
A retrospective cephalometric investigation of two fixed functional orthodontic appliances in class II treatment: Functional Mandibular Advancer vs. Herbst appliance.Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Jan;22(1):293-304. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2111-5. Epub 2017 Apr 1. Clin Oral Investig. 2018. PMID: 28365810
-
Soft tissue profile changes after Functional Mandibular Advancer or Herbst appliance treatment in class II patients.Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Mar;22(2):971-980. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2177-0. Epub 2017 Jul 18. Clin Oral Investig. 2018. PMID: 28721528
-
Angle class II correction: stepwise mandibular advancement or bite jumping? : A systematic review and meta-analysis of skeletal, dental and condylar effects.J Orofac Orthop. 2020 Jul;81(4):286-300. doi: 10.1007/s00056-020-00226-6. Epub 2020 May 20. J Orofac Orthop. 2020. PMID: 32435862 English.
Cited by
-
Twenty-year clinical experience with fixed functional appliances.Dental Press J Orthod. 2018 Mar-Apr;23(2):87-109. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.23.2.087-109.sar. Dental Press J Orthod. 2018. PMID: 29898162 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Stepwise versus single-step mandibular advancement with functional appliance in treating class II patients : A meta-analysis.J Orofac Orthop. 2020 Sep;81(5):311-327. doi: 10.1007/s00056-020-00229-3. Epub 2020 May 15. J Orofac Orthop. 2020. PMID: 32415333 Review. English.
-
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 13;3(3):CD003452. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003452.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 29534303 Free PMC article.
-
Effectiveness of Functional Mandibular Advancer in Patients with Class II Malocclusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Turk J Orthod. 2023 Dec 29;36(4):270-279. doi: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2022.110. Turk J Orthod. 2023. PMID: 38164015 Free PMC article.
-
Mandibular fossa morphology during therapy with a fixed functional orthodontic appliance : A magnetic resonance imaging study.J Orofac Orthop. 2018 Mar;79(2):116-132. doi: 10.1007/s00056-018-0124-6. Epub 2018 Feb 20. J Orofac Orthop. 2018. PMID: 29464288 English.
References
-
- Hagg U, Pancherz H. Dentofacial orthopaedics in relation to chronological age, growth period and skeletal development. An analysis of 72 male patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod. 1988;10:169–176. - PubMed
-
- Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA., Jr Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:599.e1–e12. - PubMed
-
- Ruf S, Pancherz H. Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes in young adults treated with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod. 1999;69:239–246. - PubMed
-
- Kinzinger G, Diedrich P. Skeletal effects in class II treatment with the functional mandibular advancer (FMA)? J Orofac Orthop. 2005;66:469–490. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources