Cranial base and maxillary changes in patients treated with Frankel' s functional regulator (1b).

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess cranial base and maxillary growth in patients with Class II-type I malocclusions when treated with Frankel' s functional regulator (FR-1b). STUDY DESIGN: The treatment group was made up of 43 patients that were divided into two groups: prepubescent (n: 28), and pubescent (n: 15). The control group included 40 patients who did not receive any kind of treatment and were likewise divided into a prepubescent group (n: 19), and a pubescent group (n: 21). A computerized cephalometric study was carried out and superimpositions were done in order to assess the antero-posterior, vertical and rotational movement of the maxilla. RESULTS: The results indicate that anterior cranial length is not affected by the regulator but the cranial deflection of the treatment group was diminished. Although a slight counterclockwise rotation effect on the upper jaw was observed due to treatment, no growth restriction of the maxilla in a vertical or antero-posterior direction was observed compared to other non-treated Class II-type I malocclusion patients. CONCLUSION: The functional regulator does not have any effect on anterior cranial length, but it does affect the angulation of the cranial base. According to our results, the appliance has demonstrated a flattening effect of the cranial base (p<0.05) in the treated sample. The functional regulator induces counterclockwise rotation rather than vertical or sagittal changes in the maxilla.

Effects on the maxilla and cranial base caused by cervical headgear: a longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to test the possible orthopedic effects of cervical headgear on the cranial base and maxilla. STUDY DESIGN: a sample consisting of 79 subjects with skeletal class II malocclusion was divided into two groups. The experimental group was made up of 41 patients all treated with cervical headgear. The control group included a total of 38 non-treated patients. Each one of these groups was then subdivided according to age into one of three groups: prepubescent, pubescent or post-pubescent. Cephalometric parameters were compared in both groups in order to measure the cranial base angle and the vertical and sagittal position of the maxilla. Additionally, cephalometric superimpositions taken at the beginning and end of the study were compared. RESULTS: results revealed significant differences in the cranial base angle and in the SNA angle (p<0.05). However, no differences were observed in the variables that measure the maxillomandibular relationship. While no changes were noted in the palatal plane slope, a flattening of the cranial base was found caused by the cervical headgear, in addition to a retrusion of point A that does not mean there was a reduction in the maxillomandibular relationship. CONCLUSIONS: cervical headgear treatment induces cephalometric flattening of the cranial base and a decrease of the SNA angle.

Study of mandibular growth in patients treated with Fränkel's functional regulator (1b).

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess mandibular growth in patients with Class II division 1 malocclusions when treated with Fränkel's functional regulator 1b. STUDY DESIGN: The treatment group was made up of 43 patients that were divided into two groups: prepubescent (n:28), and pubescent (n:15). The control group included 40 patients who did not receive any kind of treatment and were likewise divided into a prepubescent group (n:19), and a pubescent group (n:21). A computerized cephalometric study was carried out and superimpositions were done in order to assess the antero-posterior, vertical and rotational movements of the mandible. A two-way ANOVA with interaction was done to compare the changes between the control group and the treatment group, while the Student t for independent samples was used to compare each age group. RESULTS: The Gnathion and Gonion points showed significant differences in the whole sample (p<0.001) as well as in the prepubescent (p<0.001) and pubescent groups (p<0.05). Rotational changes of the mandible measured using the facial axis and mandibular plane showed no statistical differences between both groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The results show that the FR produces vertical orthopedic growth in the mandible but not horizontal growth compared to non-treated Class II-type I malocclusion patients. No rotational changes were found in the mandible, but we did record mandibular growth along the inclination of the facial axis.

Cranial base and maxillary changes in patients treated with Frankel’s functional regulator (1b)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess cranial base and maxillary growth in patients with Class IItype I malocclusions when treated with Frankel’s functional regulator (FR-1b). Study Design: The treatment group was made up of 43 patients that were divided into two groups: prepubescent (n: 28), and pubescent (n: 15). The control group included 40 patients who did not receive any kind of treatment and were likewise divided into a prepubescent group (n: 19), and a pubescent group (n: 21). A computerized cephalometric study was carried out and superimpositions were done in order to assess the antero-posterior, vertical and rotational movement of the maxilla. Results: The results indicate that anterior cranial length is not affected by the regulator but the cranial deflection of the treatment group was diminished. Although a slight counterclockwise rotation effect on the upper jaw was observed due to treatment, no growth restriction of the maxilla in a vertical or antero-posterior direction was observed compared to other non-treated Class II-type I malocclusion patients. Conclusion: The functional regulator does not have any effect on anterior cranial length, but it does affect the angulation of the cranial base. According to our results, the appliance has demonstrated a flattening effect of the cranial base (p<0.05) in the treated sample. The functional regulator induces counterclockwise rotation rather than vertical or sagittal changes in the maxilla (AU)

Effects on the maxilla and cranial base caused by cervical headgear: A longitudinal study

Objectives: The aim of this study is to test the possible orthopedic effects of cervical headgear on the cranial base and maxilla. Study design: a sample consisting of 79 subjects with skeletal class II malocclusion was divided into two groups. The experimental group was made up of 41 patients all treated with cervical headgear. The control group included a total of 38 non-treated patients. Each one of these groups was then subdivided according to age into one of three groups: prepubescent, pubescent or post-pubescent. Cephalometric parameters were compared in both groups in order to measure the cranial base angle and the vertical and sagittal position of the maxilla. Additionally, cephalometric superimpositions taken at the beginning and end of the study were compared. Results: results revealed significant differences in the cranial base angle and in the SNA angle (p<0.05). However, no differences were observed in the variables that measure the maxillomandibular relationship. While no changes were noted in the palatal plane slope, a flattening of the cranial base was found caused by the cervical headgear, in addition to a retrusion of point A that does not mean there was a reduction in the maxillomandibular relationship. Conclusions: cervical headgear treatment induces cephalometric flattening of the cranial base and a decrease of the SNA angle (AU)

Study of mandibular growth in patients treated with Fränkel's functional regulator (1b)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess mandibular growth in patients with Class II division 1 malocclusions when treated with Fränkel's functional regulator 1b. Study Design: The treatment group was made up of 43 patients that were divided into two groups: prepubescent (n:28), and pubescent (n:15). The control group included 40 patients who did not receive any kind of treatment and were likewise divided into a prepubescent group (n:19), and a pubescent group (n:21). A computerized cephalometric study was carried out and superimpositions were done in order to assess the antero-posterior, vertical and rotational movements of the mandible. A two-way ANOVA with interaction was done to compare the changes between the control group and the treatment group, while the Student t for independent samples was used to compare each age group. Results: The Gnathion and Gonion points showed significant differences in the whole sample (p<0.001) as well as in the prepubescent (p<0.001) and pubescent groups (p<0.05). Rotational changes of the mandible measured using the facial axis and mandibular plane showed no statistical differences between both groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: The results show that the FR produces vertical orthopedic growth in the mandible but not horizontal growth compared to non-treated Class II-type I malocclusion patients. No rotational changes were found in the mandible, but we did record mandibular growth along the inclination of the facial axis (AU)

No disponible