Comparative assessment of two-phase class II treatment with Activator or Bionator followed by fixed appliances: A retrospective controlled before-and-after study.

AIM: Two-phase treatment for children with Class II malocclusion with several functional appliances is still performed by many orthodontists, while the Activator and the Bionator appliances are two of the most popular ones. Aim of this study was to compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of treatment with these two appliances. METHODS: Class II children treated with Activator or Bionator in the first phase, followed by a phase of fixed appliances were included. Skeletal and dentoalveolar parameters were assessed from lateral cephalograms and analysed with linear regressions at 5%. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients (mean age 10.0 years; 47% female) were included. During the first phase, Bionator increased less the SNB (difference in mean treatment-induced changes [MD] -0.7°; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.3 to -0.2°; P=0.01) and decreased less the ANB angle (MD 0.6°; 95% CI 0 to 1.1°; P=0.03) compared to Activator. Activator slightly increased the facial axis and Bionator reduced it (MD -1.6°; 95% CI -2.3 to -0.8°; P<0.001). Compared to Activator, the Bionator retroclined more the upper incisors (MD -2.4°; 95% CI -4.6 to -0.2°; P=0.03) and increased more the interincisal angle (MD 2.9°; 95% CI 0.5 to 5.4°; P=0.02). After the second phase (6.2 years after baseline), the only differences were a reduced facial axis (MD -1.3°; 95% CI -2.2 to -0.3°; P=0.008) and an increased maxillary rotation (MD 0.9°; 95% CI 0 to 1.8°; P=0.04) with Bionator compared to Activator. CONCLUSION: Similar dentoalveolar effects were seen overall with two-phase treatment with either appliance, with Bionator being associated with more vertical increase compared to Activator.

Duration of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in adolescents and adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Adults with fixed orthodontic appliances are increasing nowadays. Compared with adolescents, adults present biological differences that might influence treatment duration. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare duration of treatment with fixed appliances between adults and adolescents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight databases were searched up to September 2019 for randomized and non-randomized clinical studies comparing treatment duration with fixed appliances in adolescents and adult patients. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE. RESULTS: A total of 11 unique studies (one prospective and 10 retrospective non-randomized) with 2969 adolescents and 1380 adult patients were finally included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies found no significant difference in the duration of comprehensive treatment with fixed appliances (MD = - 0.8 month; 95% CI = - 4.2 to 2.6 months; P = 0.65; I2 = 92%) between adults and adolescents. Similarly, both distalization of upper first molars with skeletal anchorage for class II correction and the retraction of canines into the premolar extraction spaces lasted similarly long among adults and adolescents. On the other hand, alignment of palatally displaced canines lasted considerably longer in adults compared to adolescents (1 study; MD = 3.8 months; 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.2 months; P = 0.002). The quality of evidence for the meta-analysis was low due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies with considerable risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: While existing evidence does not indicate a difference in the overall duration of treatment with fixed appliances between adults and adolescents, the alignment of palatally displaced canines lasted significantly longer in adults. However, our confidence in these estimates is low due to the risk of bias in the included studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: ( CRD42019148169 ).