Treatment and posttreatment changes with combined headgear therapy

Effects of force magnitude on dental arches in cervical headgear therapy

AIM

To study the influence of different force magnitudes on dental arches in cervical headgear (CHG) treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this controlled clinical trial, patients (n = 40) were treated with CHG with light (L, 300 g, n = 22) or heavy force (H, 500 g, n = 18) magnitude. Subjects were asked to use CHG for 10 hours a day for 10 months. The outer bow of the CHG facebow was raised 10-20 degrees and the inner bow expanded 3-4 mm. Adherence to instructions and force magnitude were monitored with an electronic module (Smartgear, Swissorthodontics, Switzerland). Impressions for study models were taken before (T1) and after (T2) treatment and the study models were scanned into digital form (3Shape, R700 Scanner, Denmark). Measurements were made using the digital models (Planmeca Romexis, Model analyser, Finland).

RESULTS

During the treatment (T1-T2) the upper inter-canine distance increased by 2.83 mm (P = 0.000) and 2.60 mm (P = 0.000) in the L and H force magnitude groups, respectively. Upper inter-molar width increased by 3.16 mm (P = 0.000) and 2.50 mm (P = 0.000) in the L and H groups, respectively. Maxillary total arch perimeter increased by 6.39 mm (P = 0.001) and 6.68 mm (P = 0.001) in the L and H groups, respectively. In the amount of change over time, T1-T2, in the upper arch measurements, no significant difference was found between the groups. Lower inter-canine width increased by 0.94 mm (P = 0.005) and 1.16 mm (P = 0.000) in the L and H groups, respectively; no difference between the groups. Lower inter-molar distance increased by 2.17 mm (P = 0.000) and 1.11 mm (P = 0.008) in the L and H groups, respectively. At the end of the study, upper and lower inter-molar width was larger in the L group than in the H group (P = 0.039 and P = 0.022, respectively).

CONCLUSION

CHG therapy is an effective method for expanding and releasing moderate crowding of the upper dental arch. The lower arch spontaneously follows the upper arch in widening effects, and minor expansion can also be seen on the lower arch. In the L group, larger inter-molar width was achieved on the upper and lower arch; probably due to better adherence to instructions. Light force is recommended for use in CHG therapy.

Evaluation of anteroposterior and vertical stability 25 years after Angle class II division 1 treatment with cervical headgear

PURPOSE

The goal was to investigate long-term (minimum 20 years) skeletal and dental changes in Angle class II division 1 patients treated with full-fixed orthodontic appliances and cervical pull headgear.

METHODS

A longitudinal retrospective study was performed with 20 orthodontic patients, who were treated exclusively by one experienced clinician and whose treatment had been completed a minimum of 20 years ago. Former patients who had been treated from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s were actively sought. After the recall, 20 patients agreed to participate in the study. Lateral cephalometric radiographs at pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2), and long-term follow-up (T3) were digitized and measurements were performed. Angular variables used were SNA, SNB, ANB, OcclPl-FH, PalPl-FH, GoMe-FH, 1‑NA, and Y axis. Linear measures were A‑NPerp, Pg-NPerp, 1‑NAmm, Wits, and LAFH.

RESULTS

From T1 to T2, a significant reduction (p < 0.01) in ANB angle from 4.70 to 2.48° and in Wits value from 3.42 to 0.98 mm were observed. It was also noticed a significant increase (p < 0.01) in LAFH from 62.02 to 67.39 mm, probably due to normal facial growth. From T2 to T3, these variables remained stable. No significant changes were observed for any other measure in any of the periods studied.

CONCLUSIONS

In the assessed sample, Angle class II division 1 patients treated with cervical pull headgear presented cephalometric outcome stability of treatment, even after a long-term follow-up of a mean of 25 years postretention.

The impact of force magnitude on the first and second maxillary molars in cervical headgear therapy

AIM

To study the effect of force magnitude on the maxillary first and second molars in cervical headgear (CHG) therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this controlled clinical trial, patients (n = 40) were treated with CHG with a light (L, 300 g, n = 22) or a heavy force (H, 500 g, n = 18) magnitude. The subjects were asked to wear CHG for 10 hours a day for 10 months. The outer bow of the CHG facebow was lifted up for 10-20 degrees and the inner bow was expanded 3-4 mm. Adherence to instructions and force magnitude were monitored using an electronic module (Smartgear, Swissorthodontics, Switzerland). Panoramic and lateral radiographs before (T1) and after treatment (T2) were analysed using a Romexis Cephalometric module (Planmeca, Finland) focussing on the angular, sagittal, and vertical positions of the permanent first and second molars.

RESULTS

According to the cephalometric analysis of the maxillary first and second molars, distal tipping occurred during T1-T2 in the H group (P = 0.010 and 0.000, respectively), and the change was greater in the H group compared to the L group (P = 0.045 and 0.019, respectively). Based on the panoramic analysis, tipping occurred in the distal direction during therapy in the H group in the second molars compared to the midline or condylar line (P = 0.001 and 0.001; P = 0.008 and 0.003 on the right and left, respectively).

CONCLUSION

With heavy force magnitude, the maxillary first and second molars can tilt more easily in the distal direction even if the CHG was used less. Distal tipping of the molar can be considered to be a side effect of CHG therapy.

Long-term skeletal effects of high-pull headgear followed by fixed appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusions

OBJECTIVES

The long-term skeletal effects of Class II treatment in growing individuals using high-pull facebow headgear and fixed edgewise appliances have not been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term skeletal effects of treatment using high-pull headgear followed by fixed orthodontic appliances compared to an untreated control group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Changes in anteroposterior and vertical cephalometric measurements of 42 Class II subjects (n = 21, mean age = 10.7 years) before treatment, after headgear correction to Class I molar relationship, after treatment with fixed appliances, and after long-term retention (mean 4.1 years), were compared to similar changes in a matched control group (n = 21, mean age = 10.9 years) by multivariable linear regression models.

RESULTS

Compared to control, the study group displayed significant long-term horizontal restriction of A-point (SNA = -1.925°, P < .0001; FH-NA = -3.042°, P < .0001; linear measurement A-point to Vertical Reference = -3.859 mm, P < .0001) and reduction of the ANB angle (-1.767°, P < .0001), with no effect on mandibular horizontal growth or maxillary and mandibular vertical skeletal changes. A-point horizontal restriction and forward mandibular horizontal growth accompanied the study group correction to Class I molar, and these changes were stable long term.

CONCLUSIONS

One phase treatment for Class II malocclusion with high-pull headgear followed by fixed orthodontic appliances resulted in correction to Class I molar through restriction of horizontal maxillary growth with continued horizontal mandibular growth and vertical skeletal changes unaffected. The anteroposterior molar correction and skeletal effects of this treatment were stable long term.

Tridimensional finite element analysis of teeth movement induced by different headgear forces

Background

This study aimed to simulate the actions of low-pull (LP), high-pull (HP), and combined pull (CP) headgears (HGs) and to analyze tooth movement tendencies through finite element analysis.

Methods

Tomographic slices of a human maxilla with complete permanent dentition were processed by reconstruction software, and the triangular surface mesh was converted into non-uniform rational B-spline (NURBS) curves. An HG facial bow was also modulated in 3D. The teeth and bone were considered to have isotropic and linear behavior, whereas the periodontal ligament was considered to have non-linear and hyperelastic behavior. Data regarding the application points, directions and magnitudes of forces were obtained from the literature and from a dolichofacial patient with class II, division 1 malocclusion, who was treated with a CP HG.

Results

The CP HG promoted 37.1 to 41.1 %, and the HP HG promoted 19.1 to 31.9 % of LP distalization. The HP HG presented the highest intrusion, and the LP HG presented the highest extrusion of the first molar. The LP HG contracted the distal side, and the HP and CP HGs contracted the lingual and distobuccal roots of the second molar to a lesser degree.

Conclusions

The LP HG promotes the greatest distalization, followed by the CP and HP HGs; the LP HG causes greater extrusion of the first molar, and the HP HG causes greater intrusion of the first molar. The LP HG causes greater contraction of the second molar than the HP HG.

Extra-oral Appliances in Orthodontic Treatment

Extra-oral appliances are used in orthodontics to apply forces to the jaws, dentition or both and the popularity of these appliances is cyclical. Although the use of retraction headgear for the management of Class II malocclusion has declined over the last 20 years with the refinement of non-compliance approaches, including temporary anchorage devices, headgear still has a useful role in orthodontics. The use of protraction headgear has increased as more evidence of its effectiveness for the treatment of Class lIl malocclusion has become available. This paper describes the mechanics and contemporary uses of headgear in orthodontics for primary care dentists and specialist orthodontists. CPD/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Extra-oral appliances have specific uses in orthodontic biomechanics. Clinicians using retraction headgear and protraction headgear should be familiar with their clinical indications, the potential problems and how these can be avoided.

Comparison of pharyngeal airway dimension, tongue and hyoid bone position based on ANB angle

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to cephalometrically evaluate the pharyngeal airway dimension, tongue and hyoid position in subjects with normal nasorespiratory functions having different dentofacial patterns (A-point-nasion-B-point [ANB] >40 and ANB <40) and to find if a correlation existed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Class I and Class II Division I patients were selected randomly. Lateral head cephalograms were taken in normal head position within a lead foil attached to the tongue tip and a barium coating on the dorsal surface of tongue. The lateral cephalograms obtained were traced using lead acetate paper and measurements were taken. Different analyses were done for the pharyngeal airways, hyoid bone, and tongue.

RESULTS

The ANB angle is a significant predictor for Class I and Class II Division I malocclusion, and the mean ANB angle of Class II Division I was different and higher. The overall mean pharynx and hyoid parameters were different and lower in Class II Division I patients than in Class I patients. The mean tongue parameter almost remained the same except for the tongue position (TT-LOP), which was higher in Class II Division I.

CONCLUSION

In general, there was no difference either in the pharyngeal airway anterioposterior dimension or in the position and relationship of the hyoid bone and tongue, between Class I and Class II Division I patients. These findings are consistent with the findings in studies. Anterioposterior dimension of the upper airway is usually maintained by adaptation of both the tongue and the hyoid bone. The result should be viewed in the light of the fact that only anterioposterior dimensions were taken into consideration; the vertical and transverse dimensions of these complex anatomical structures need to have newer three-dimensional (3-D) imaging technique to find if a correlation existed between them, making future studies more comprehensive.

Dental and skeletal effects of combined headgear used alone or in association with rapid maxillary expansion

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of combined headgear used alone or in association with rapid maxillary expansion, as the first step for Class II malocclusion treatment.

METHODS

The sample comprised 61 patients divided into three groups: Group 1, combined headgear (CH); Group 2, CH + rapid maxillary expansion (CH + RME); and Group 3, control (CG). In Group 1, patients were treated with combined headgear until Class I molar relationship was achieved. In Group 2, the protocol for headgear was the same; however, patients were previously subject to rapid maxillary expansion.

RESULTS

Results showed distal displacement of maxillary molars for both experimental groups (p < 0.001), with distal tipping only in Group 1 (CH) (p < 0.001). There was restriction of forward maxillary growth in Group 2 (CH + RME) (p < 0.05) and clockwise rotation of the maxilla in Group 1 (CH) (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, it is possible to suggest that treatment with both protocols was efficient; however, results were more significant for Group 2 (CH + RME) with less side effects.