Skeletal, dental, and functional effects of headgear-activator therapy on Class II malocclusion in Japanese: a clinical case report

Treatment effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator associated with fixed appliances

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator, associated with fixed appliances.

METHODS

The sample comprised 77 young individuals divided into 3 groups: Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.15 years; group 2 had 30 patients, treated with the Bionator and fixed appliances, for a mean treatment time of 3.92 years; and the control group included 22 subjects followed for a mean period of 2.13 years. The initial and final lateral cephalograms of the patients were evaluated. Intergroup comparison at the initial stage and of the treatment changes were performed by analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Their effects consisted in a restrictive effect on the maxilla, a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors in both groups and intrusion with the Jasper Jumper appliance, maxillary molar distalization with the Jasper Jumper, extrusion and mesialization of the mandibular molars, both appliances provided significant improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of both appliances in class II malocclusion treatment are similar; however, treatment with the Jasper Jumper was shorter than with the Bionator.

Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and the activator-headgear combination appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the dentoskeletal changes of patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with either the Jasper jumper appliance or the activator-headgear combination, both associated with fixed appliances.

METHODS

The sample comprised 72 subjects with Class II Division 1 malocclusion divided into 3 groups: group 1 included 25 subjects treated with fixed appliances and the force modules of the Jasper jumper at an initial mean age of 12.72 years, group 2 included 25 subjects treated with the activator-headgear combination followed by fixed appliances at an initial mean age of 11.07 years, and group 3 included 22 untreated subjects at an initial mean age of 12.67 years. Initial cephalometric characteristics and dentoskeletal changes were compared with analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Both experimental groups had similar dentoskeletal changes: restrictive effect on the maxilla, clockwise mandibular rotation and a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion of the maxillary incisors, distalization of the maxillary molars, protrusion of the mandibular incisors, extrusion of the mandibular molars, and significant improvements of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite, and the molar relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of the Jasper jumper and the activator-headgear combination followed by fixed orthodontic appliances were similar in Class II malocclusion treatment.

Effects of activator and high-pull headgear combination therapy: skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue profile changes

The aim of this study was to evaluate skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue profile changes with activator and high-pull headgear combination therapy in patients with Class II malocclusions caused by maxillary prognathism and mandibular retrognathism. The subjects, all in the mixed dentition, were selected from a single centre and were divided into two groups: 28 patients were treated with an incisor double capping activator and a high-pull headgear combination appliance (13 girls, 15 boys mean chronological age 11.7 +/- 1.2 years, skeletal age 12.1 +/- 1.4 years) and an untreated group of 28 subjects (14 girls, 14 boys mean chronological mean age 11.9 +/- 1.1 years, skeletal age 12.3 +/- 1.3 years). The skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue profile changes that occurred were compared on lateral cephalograms taken before treatment (T0) and after 1.1 +/- 0.3 years when the combination appliance was removed (T1). In the control group, the radiographs were obtained at the start (T0) and after an observation period 1.2 +/- 0.4 years (T1). Statistical analysis was undertaken with Wilcoxon's ranked-sum test for intra-group comparisons and differences between groups with t-test and Bonferroni's test at a level of significance of P < 0.05. Activator and high-pull headgear combination treatment in these growing patients resulted in a correction of the skeletal Class II relationship (ANB -3.4 degrees), a restriction of maxillary growth (SNA -2.0 degrees, OLp-A -2.3 mm), an advancement of the mandibular structures (SNB +2.6 degrees, FH-NPg +2.3 degrees, OLp-B +2.7 mm, OLp-Pg +2.2 mm), an increase in lower face height (ANS-Me +3.9 mm), a correction of the overjet (-5.4 mm), an improvement in overbite (-2.2 mm), uprighting of the maxillary incisors (U1-FH -5.3 degrees, OLp-U1 -2.5 mm), protrusion of the mandibular incisors (IMPA +2.0 degrees, OLp-L1 +2.7 mm), and a correction of the dental Class II malocclusion (OLp-L6 +3.5 mm). The soft tissue profile changes were a correction of facial convexity (G'-Sn-Pg' angle 2.3 degrees, Mlf-Li-x-axis angle 9.1 degrees), and an increase in lower antero-posterior (Mlf-y-axis 5.6 mm, Pg'-y-axis 5.3 mm), and lower vertical (Sls-x-axis 3.8 mm, Pg'-x-axis 3.8 mm, Me'-x-axis 5.1 mm) soft tissue dimensions. The mentolabial fold depth (Mlf-E line) also significantly decreased, -0.8 mm in the treated group. The activator and high-pull headgear combination appliance was effective in treating growing patients with maxillary prognathism, mandibular deficiency, and facial convexity by a combination of skeletal and dentoalveolar changes and improvement in the soft tissue facial profile.

Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects

The aims of this study were to determine whether the activator and activator headgear encourage mandibular growth, and whether there is any superiority of one appliance over the other or if the resultant changes are due to normal growth. Forty-nine skeletal Class II division 1 patients were selected. Thirty-three (13 females, 20 males; mean age 12.52 +/- 1.42 years) were treated with an Andresen activator and the remaining 16 (7 females, 9 males; mean age 13.04 +/- 1.47 years) with an activator headgear combination. Twenty Class II subjects (9 females, 11 males; mean age 12.57 +/- 1.11 years) who had previously refused treatment served as a control group. Cephalometric landmarks were marked and digitized by one author to avoid inter-observer variability. Nine angular and 12 linear measurements were established and measured using Vistadent AT software. A paired-sample t-test and an ANOVA test were used to statistically evaluate the findings. The results revealed that both the activator and the activator headgear combination significantly (P < 0.001) encouraged mandibular growth, but had little restraining effect on the maxilla. The mandibular incisors were more controlled in the activator headgear combination group. The resultant skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue changes differed significantly from those due to growth.

Growth and treatment changes in patients treated with a headgear-activator appliance

The aim of this study was to investigate growth and treatment changes in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with a combined headgear-activator appliance. The sample consisted of 20 consecutive male patients treated with headgear-activator. Their compliance was checked after 2 months of treatment, and 3 patients dropped out. Lateral cephalograms, obtained 6 months before treatment, at the start of treatment, after 6 and 12 months of treatment, and 24 months after treatment, were analyzed by the method of Pancherz. The results disclosed that during growth, on average, overjet, molar relationship, and jaw-base relationship improved, and the mandibular incisors became retruded; the changes were statistically significant over a 2-year period. There was no significant change in the overbite. During the 12 months of treatment, there was no maxillary forward growth, and the jaw relationship improved (P <.001) because of forward growth of the mandible (P <.001). The molar relationship and the overbite improved (P <.001). Significant treatment effects included reduction in overjet (P <.001) and overbite (P <.01), and improvement of jaw-base (P <.05) and molar (P <.001) relationships. There was significant restraint of maxillary forward growth (P <.05). The eruption of the maxillary incisors and molars was restrained (P <.05). The average basic growth pattern in Class II Division 1 malocclusion resulted in small favorable changes in overjet, molar relationship, and jaw-base relationship. The main effect of the headgear-activator appliance was a favorable dental change, limited to restraint of maxillary forward growth but not affecting the vertical dimension.