Does mandibular advancement with clear aligners have the same skeletal and dentoalveolar effects as traditional functional appliances?
Abstract Background The study aimed to compare the dentoskeletal effects of Vanbeek Activator, Herbst, Twin-Block and Mandibular Advancement with clear aligners in children with skeletal Class II malocclusions. Methods A sample with sixty-three patients (37 males, 26 females) was included and divide...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-02-01
|
| Series: | BMC Oral Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02709-5 |
| _version_ | 1811171497148940288 |
|---|---|
| author | Yanqi Wu Qian Yu Yunhui Xia Bo Wang Siyue Chen Kaijun Gu Bojun Zhang Min Zhu |
| author_facet | Yanqi Wu Qian Yu Yunhui Xia Bo Wang Siyue Chen Kaijun Gu Bojun Zhang Min Zhu |
| author_sort | Yanqi Wu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background The study aimed to compare the dentoskeletal effects of Vanbeek Activator, Herbst, Twin-Block and Mandibular Advancement with clear aligners in children with skeletal Class II malocclusions. Methods A sample with sixty-three patients (37 males, 26 females) was included and divided into untreated control group (C, n = 12), Vanbeek Activator group (V, n = 14), Herbst group (H, n = 11), Twin-Block group (TB, n = 12) and MA group (MA, n = 14). Cephalometric analysis and Johnston Pitchfork analysis were performed to quantify the skeletal and dentoalveolar components in molar relationship and overjet correction. Compare the differences of cephalometric data and Johnston-analysis data. Results The treatment changes showed significant differences in SNB, FH-NP, NA-PA, Co-Go, Co-Pog, ANB, lower facial height ratio, U1-PP, U6-PP, L1-MP and U1-L1. All the appliances improved overjet relationships significantly (Vanbeek, Herbst, Twin-Block and MA were 2.77 mm, 5.53 mm, 4.73 mm and 3.66 mm respectively) with significant retraction of maxillary incisors. The lower incisor displacement of group V and MA was negative, while that of group H and TB was positive and there were significant differences. Molar relationships were also improved by 3.45 mm, 6.85 mm, 3.48 mm and 0.92 mm for Vanbeek, Herbst, Twin-Block and MA. Mandible displacement showed a trend of group H > TB > V > MA. The displacement of maxillary molars in group H was greater than that in group C, TB and MA, and that of mandibular ones was greater than that in group C, V and MA, significantly. Herbst, Twin-Block and MA have more significant dentoalveolar effect than Vanbeek, while Vanbeek has more skeletal effect than the others especially in restraining maxillary growth. Conclusions Four appliances are all effective in mandibular advancement, modification of class II molar relationship and deep overjet, with unavoidable increase in lower facial ratio. Vanbeek Activator has the most skeletal effects. Vanbeek and MA have a good control of mandibular incisors while more compensatory lower incisors proclination in Herbst and Twin-Block. Herbst has greater maxillary molar distalization. MA allows aligning and leveling meanwhile leading the mandible forward. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T17:14:57Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-44c1ea755df64111972db12ac18aab69 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1472-6831 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T17:14:57Z |
| publishDate | 2023-02-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Oral Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-44c1ea755df64111972db12ac18aab692023-02-05T12:25:47ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312023-02-0123111210.1186/s12903-023-02709-5Does mandibular advancement with clear aligners have the same skeletal and dentoalveolar effects as traditional functional appliances?Yanqi Wu0Qian Yu1Yunhui Xia2Bo Wang3Siyue Chen4Kaijun Gu5Bojun Zhang6Min Zhu7Department of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Shanghai Xuhui District Dental CenterDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineAbstract Background The study aimed to compare the dentoskeletal effects of Vanbeek Activator, Herbst, Twin-Block and Mandibular Advancement with clear aligners in children with skeletal Class II malocclusions. Methods A sample with sixty-three patients (37 males, 26 females) was included and divided into untreated control group (C, n = 12), Vanbeek Activator group (V, n = 14), Herbst group (H, n = 11), Twin-Block group (TB, n = 12) and MA group (MA, n = 14). Cephalometric analysis and Johnston Pitchfork analysis were performed to quantify the skeletal and dentoalveolar components in molar relationship and overjet correction. Compare the differences of cephalometric data and Johnston-analysis data. Results The treatment changes showed significant differences in SNB, FH-NP, NA-PA, Co-Go, Co-Pog, ANB, lower facial height ratio, U1-PP, U6-PP, L1-MP and U1-L1. All the appliances improved overjet relationships significantly (Vanbeek, Herbst, Twin-Block and MA were 2.77 mm, 5.53 mm, 4.73 mm and 3.66 mm respectively) with significant retraction of maxillary incisors. The lower incisor displacement of group V and MA was negative, while that of group H and TB was positive and there were significant differences. Molar relationships were also improved by 3.45 mm, 6.85 mm, 3.48 mm and 0.92 mm for Vanbeek, Herbst, Twin-Block and MA. Mandible displacement showed a trend of group H > TB > V > MA. The displacement of maxillary molars in group H was greater than that in group C, TB and MA, and that of mandibular ones was greater than that in group C, V and MA, significantly. Herbst, Twin-Block and MA have more significant dentoalveolar effect than Vanbeek, while Vanbeek has more skeletal effect than the others especially in restraining maxillary growth. Conclusions Four appliances are all effective in mandibular advancement, modification of class II molar relationship and deep overjet, with unavoidable increase in lower facial ratio. Vanbeek Activator has the most skeletal effects. Vanbeek and MA have a good control of mandibular incisors while more compensatory lower incisors proclination in Herbst and Twin-Block. Herbst has greater maxillary molar distalization. MA allows aligning and leveling meanwhile leading the mandible forward.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02709-5Class II malocclusionClear alignersFunctional appliancesCephalometricJohnston’s Pitchfork Analysis |
| spellingShingle | Yanqi Wu Qian Yu Yunhui Xia Bo Wang Siyue Chen Kaijun Gu Bojun Zhang Min Zhu Does mandibular advancement with clear aligners have the same skeletal and dentoalveolar effects as traditional functional appliances? BMC Oral Health Class II malocclusion Clear aligners Functional appliances Cephalometric Johnston’s Pitchfork Analysis |
| title | Does mandibular advancement with clear aligners have the same skeletal and dentoalveolar effects as traditional functional appliances? |
| title_full | Does mandibular advancement with clear aligners have the same skeletal and dentoalveolar effects as traditional functional appliances? |
| title_fullStr | Does mandibular advancement with clear aligners have the same skeletal and dentoalveolar effects as traditional functional appliances? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Does mandibular advancement with clear aligners have the same skeletal and dentoalveolar effects as traditional functional appliances? |
| title_short | Does mandibular advancement with clear aligners have the same skeletal and dentoalveolar effects as traditional functional appliances? |
| title_sort | does mandibular advancement with clear aligners have the same skeletal and dentoalveolar effects as traditional functional appliances |
| topic | Class II malocclusion Clear aligners Functional appliances Cephalometric Johnston’s Pitchfork Analysis |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02709-5 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yanqiwu doesmandibularadvancementwithclearalignershavethesameskeletalanddentoalveolareffectsastraditionalfunctionalappliances AT qianyu doesmandibularadvancementwithclearalignershavethesameskeletalanddentoalveolareffectsastraditionalfunctionalappliances AT yunhuixia doesmandibularadvancementwithclearalignershavethesameskeletalanddentoalveolareffectsastraditionalfunctionalappliances AT bowang doesmandibularadvancementwithclearalignershavethesameskeletalanddentoalveolareffectsastraditionalfunctionalappliances AT siyuechen doesmandibularadvancementwithclearalignershavethesameskeletalanddentoalveolareffectsastraditionalfunctionalappliances AT kaijungu doesmandibularadvancementwithclearalignershavethesameskeletalanddentoalveolareffectsastraditionalfunctionalappliances AT bojunzhang doesmandibularadvancementwithclearalignershavethesameskeletalanddentoalveolareffectsastraditionalfunctionalappliances AT minzhu doesmandibularadvancementwithclearalignershavethesameskeletalanddentoalveolareffectsastraditionalfunctionalappliances |