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
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
