Loading…
Dentoskeletal effects of the maxillary splint headgear in the early correction of Class II malocclusion
Background To compare dentoskeletal changes produced by the maxillary splint headgear and cervical headgear appliance during the early phase of Class II treatment, specially the initial overjet and upper incisors position. Subjects and methods In this retrospective study, 28 Class II patients treate...
Saved in:
Published in: | Progress in orthodontics 2020-05, Vol.21 (1), p.11-11, Article 11 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c607t-754d37efe998ced03002b55263132b537e6fa46ebcbf7fbb1638ad2891b462013 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c607t-754d37efe998ced03002b55263132b537e6fa46ebcbf7fbb1638ad2891b462013 |
container_end_page | 11 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 11 |
container_title | Progress in orthodontics |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Miguel, José Augusto M. Masucci, Caterina Fernandes, Luciana Quintanilha Pires Artese, Flavia Franchi, Lorenzo Giuntini, Veronica |
description | Background
To compare dentoskeletal changes produced by the maxillary splint headgear and cervical headgear appliance during the early phase of Class II treatment, specially the initial overjet and upper incisors position.
Subjects and methods
In this retrospective study, 28 Class II patients treated with the maxillary splint headgear (MSG, mean age 10.1 ± 1.9 years) and 28 Class II patients treated with cervical headgear (CHG, mean age 9.5 ± 1.9 years) were evaluated before and after treatment. Statistical comparisons between the two groups for cephalometric measurements at T1 and for T2-T1 changes were performed by means of independent sample
t
tests.
Results
The MSG showed a significantly greater reduction of the overjet in comparison to the CHG (− 2.4 mm and − 0.7 mm, respectively) and a significantly greater maxillary incisor uprighting (− 1.8 mm and 0.4 mm, respectively). In the MSG, overjet correction was due mainly to mandibular advancement (3.5 mm), while the correction of molar relationship (3.9 mm) was 64% skeletal and 36% dentoalveolar. In the CHG, the overjet correction was also more skeletal, due to mandibular growth (1.8 mm), while correction of molar relationship (3.5 mm) was 63% dentoalveolar and 37% skeletal.
Conclusions
Both groups showed favorable skeletal mandibular changes, which was more significant in the MSG. Regarding tooth movement, the maxillary splint headgear was more effective in uprighting upper incisors and reducing the overjet than cervical headgear appliance. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s40510-020-00311-x |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_9e37dda0412943c4bea9fb36f90d8f9c</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_9e37dda0412943c4bea9fb36f90d8f9c</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2398159271</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c607t-754d37efe998ced03002b55263132b537e6fa46ebcbf7fbb1638ad2891b462013</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UsuO0zAUjRCIecAPsECR2LAJXD9ixxskVBioNBIbWFuOc52muHGxk1Hn73GbYZhhwcLyVc7DN0enKF4ReEdII94nDjWBCmg-wAipDk-Kc0qUqAhw-vTBfFZcpLQFIFJxeF6cMcoEq2s4L_pPOE4h_USPk_ElOod2SmVw5bTBcmcOg_cm3pZp74dxKjdouh5NLIfxRMijvy1tiDHLhjAehStvUirX66z2wVo_pwy8KJ454xO-vLsvix9Xn7-vvlbX376sVx-vKytATpWsecckOlSqsdgBA6BtXVPBCMtDhoQzXGBrWydd2xLBGtPRRpGWCwqEXRbrxbcLZqv3cdjl7XUwgz59CLHXJk6D9agVMtl1BjihijPLWzTKtUw4BV3jlM1eHxav_dzusLM5qWj8I9PHyDhsdB9utMy510plg7d3BjH8mjFNejckiznREcOcNGWqIbWi8rj3m3-o2zDHMUd1ZEnOG6Ass-jCsjGkFNHdL0NAHzuhl07o3Al96oQ-ZNHrh79xL_lTgkxgCyFlaOwx_n37P7a_Ab6hw5o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2397448023</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dentoskeletal effects of the maxillary splint headgear in the early correction of Class II malocclusion</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>Springer Nature - SpringerLink Journals - Fully Open Access </source><creator>Miguel, José Augusto M. ; Masucci, Caterina ; Fernandes, Luciana Quintanilha Pires ; Artese, Flavia ; Franchi, Lorenzo ; Giuntini, Veronica</creator><creatorcontrib>Miguel, José Augusto M. ; Masucci, Caterina ; Fernandes, Luciana Quintanilha Pires ; Artese, Flavia ; Franchi, Lorenzo ; Giuntini, Veronica</creatorcontrib><description>Background
To compare dentoskeletal changes produced by the maxillary splint headgear and cervical headgear appliance during the early phase of Class II treatment, specially the initial overjet and upper incisors position.
Subjects and methods
In this retrospective study, 28 Class II patients treated with the maxillary splint headgear (MSG, mean age 10.1 ± 1.9 years) and 28 Class II patients treated with cervical headgear (CHG, mean age 9.5 ± 1.9 years) were evaluated before and after treatment. Statistical comparisons between the two groups for cephalometric measurements at T1 and for T2-T1 changes were performed by means of independent sample
t
tests.
Results
The MSG showed a significantly greater reduction of the overjet in comparison to the CHG (− 2.4 mm and − 0.7 mm, respectively) and a significantly greater maxillary incisor uprighting (− 1.8 mm and 0.4 mm, respectively). In the MSG, overjet correction was due mainly to mandibular advancement (3.5 mm), while the correction of molar relationship (3.9 mm) was 64% skeletal and 36% dentoalveolar. In the CHG, the overjet correction was also more skeletal, due to mandibular growth (1.8 mm), while correction of molar relationship (3.5 mm) was 63% dentoalveolar and 37% skeletal.
Conclusions
Both groups showed favorable skeletal mandibular changes, which was more significant in the MSG. Regarding tooth movement, the maxillary splint headgear was more effective in uprighting upper incisors and reducing the overjet than cervical headgear appliance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2196-1042</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1723-7785</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2196-1042</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s40510-020-00311-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32363550</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Angle Class II ; Cephalometry ; Child ; Dental occlusion ; Dental overjet ; Dentistry ; Extraoral traction appliance ; Extraoral Traction Appliances ; Headgear ; Humans ; Incisor protrusion ; Incisors ; Malocclusion, Angle Class II ; Mandible ; Maxilla ; Medicine ; Retrospective Studies ; Splints ; Tooth Movement Techniques</subject><ispartof>Progress in orthodontics, 2020-05, Vol.21 (1), p.11-11, Article 11</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c607t-754d37efe998ced03002b55263132b537e6fa46ebcbf7fbb1638ad2891b462013</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c607t-754d37efe998ced03002b55263132b537e6fa46ebcbf7fbb1638ad2891b462013</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7196599/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7196599/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32363550$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Miguel, José Augusto M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masucci, Caterina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fernandes, Luciana Quintanilha Pires</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Artese, Flavia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franchi, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giuntini, Veronica</creatorcontrib><title>Dentoskeletal effects of the maxillary splint headgear in the early correction of Class II malocclusion</title><title>Progress in orthodontics</title><addtitle>Prog Orthod</addtitle><addtitle>Prog Orthod</addtitle><description>Background
To compare dentoskeletal changes produced by the maxillary splint headgear and cervical headgear appliance during the early phase of Class II treatment, specially the initial overjet and upper incisors position.
Subjects and methods
In this retrospective study, 28 Class II patients treated with the maxillary splint headgear (MSG, mean age 10.1 ± 1.9 years) and 28 Class II patients treated with cervical headgear (CHG, mean age 9.5 ± 1.9 years) were evaluated before and after treatment. Statistical comparisons between the two groups for cephalometric measurements at T1 and for T2-T1 changes were performed by means of independent sample
t
tests.
Results
The MSG showed a significantly greater reduction of the overjet in comparison to the CHG (− 2.4 mm and − 0.7 mm, respectively) and a significantly greater maxillary incisor uprighting (− 1.8 mm and 0.4 mm, respectively). In the MSG, overjet correction was due mainly to mandibular advancement (3.5 mm), while the correction of molar relationship (3.9 mm) was 64% skeletal and 36% dentoalveolar. In the CHG, the overjet correction was also more skeletal, due to mandibular growth (1.8 mm), while correction of molar relationship (3.5 mm) was 63% dentoalveolar and 37% skeletal.
Conclusions
Both groups showed favorable skeletal mandibular changes, which was more significant in the MSG. Regarding tooth movement, the maxillary splint headgear was more effective in uprighting upper incisors and reducing the overjet than cervical headgear appliance.</description><subject>Angle Class II</subject><subject>Cephalometry</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Dental occlusion</subject><subject>Dental overjet</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Extraoral traction appliance</subject><subject>Extraoral Traction Appliances</subject><subject>Headgear</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incisor protrusion</subject><subject>Incisors</subject><subject>Malocclusion, Angle Class II</subject><subject>Mandible</subject><subject>Maxilla</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Splints</subject><subject>Tooth Movement Techniques</subject><issn>2196-1042</issn><issn>1723-7785</issn><issn>2196-1042</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UsuO0zAUjRCIecAPsECR2LAJXD9ixxskVBioNBIbWFuOc52muHGxk1Hn73GbYZhhwcLyVc7DN0enKF4ReEdII94nDjWBCmg-wAipDk-Kc0qUqAhw-vTBfFZcpLQFIFJxeF6cMcoEq2s4L_pPOE4h_USPk_ElOod2SmVw5bTBcmcOg_cm3pZp74dxKjdouh5NLIfxRMijvy1tiDHLhjAehStvUirX66z2wVo_pwy8KJ454xO-vLsvix9Xn7-vvlbX376sVx-vKytATpWsecckOlSqsdgBA6BtXVPBCMtDhoQzXGBrWydd2xLBGtPRRpGWCwqEXRbrxbcLZqv3cdjl7XUwgz59CLHXJk6D9agVMtl1BjihijPLWzTKtUw4BV3jlM1eHxav_dzusLM5qWj8I9PHyDhsdB9utMy510plg7d3BjH8mjFNejckiznREcOcNGWqIbWi8rj3m3-o2zDHMUd1ZEnOG6Ass-jCsjGkFNHdL0NAHzuhl07o3Al96oQ-ZNHrh79xL_lTgkxgCyFlaOwx_n37P7a_Ab6hw5o</recordid><startdate>20200504</startdate><enddate>20200504</enddate><creator>Miguel, José Augusto M.</creator><creator>Masucci, Caterina</creator><creator>Fernandes, Luciana Quintanilha Pires</creator><creator>Artese, Flavia</creator><creator>Franchi, Lorenzo</creator><creator>Giuntini, Veronica</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>SpringerOpen</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200504</creationdate><title>Dentoskeletal effects of the maxillary splint headgear in the early correction of Class II malocclusion</title><author>Miguel, José Augusto M. ; Masucci, Caterina ; Fernandes, Luciana Quintanilha Pires ; Artese, Flavia ; Franchi, Lorenzo ; Giuntini, Veronica</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c607t-754d37efe998ced03002b55263132b537e6fa46ebcbf7fbb1638ad2891b462013</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Angle Class II</topic><topic>Cephalometry</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Dental occlusion</topic><topic>Dental overjet</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Extraoral traction appliance</topic><topic>Extraoral Traction Appliances</topic><topic>Headgear</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incisor protrusion</topic><topic>Incisors</topic><topic>Malocclusion, Angle Class II</topic><topic>Mandible</topic><topic>Maxilla</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Splints</topic><topic>Tooth Movement Techniques</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Miguel, José Augusto M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masucci, Caterina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fernandes, Luciana Quintanilha Pires</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Artese, Flavia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franchi, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giuntini, Veronica</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Open Access: DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Progress in orthodontics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Miguel, José Augusto M.</au><au>Masucci, Caterina</au><au>Fernandes, Luciana Quintanilha Pires</au><au>Artese, Flavia</au><au>Franchi, Lorenzo</au><au>Giuntini, Veronica</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dentoskeletal effects of the maxillary splint headgear in the early correction of Class II malocclusion</atitle><jtitle>Progress in orthodontics</jtitle><stitle>Prog Orthod</stitle><addtitle>Prog Orthod</addtitle><date>2020-05-04</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>11</spage><epage>11</epage><pages>11-11</pages><artnum>11</artnum><issn>2196-1042</issn><issn>1723-7785</issn><eissn>2196-1042</eissn><abstract>Background
To compare dentoskeletal changes produced by the maxillary splint headgear and cervical headgear appliance during the early phase of Class II treatment, specially the initial overjet and upper incisors position.
Subjects and methods
In this retrospective study, 28 Class II patients treated with the maxillary splint headgear (MSG, mean age 10.1 ± 1.9 years) and 28 Class II patients treated with cervical headgear (CHG, mean age 9.5 ± 1.9 years) were evaluated before and after treatment. Statistical comparisons between the two groups for cephalometric measurements at T1 and for T2-T1 changes were performed by means of independent sample
t
tests.
Results
The MSG showed a significantly greater reduction of the overjet in comparison to the CHG (− 2.4 mm and − 0.7 mm, respectively) and a significantly greater maxillary incisor uprighting (− 1.8 mm and 0.4 mm, respectively). In the MSG, overjet correction was due mainly to mandibular advancement (3.5 mm), while the correction of molar relationship (3.9 mm) was 64% skeletal and 36% dentoalveolar. In the CHG, the overjet correction was also more skeletal, due to mandibular growth (1.8 mm), while correction of molar relationship (3.5 mm) was 63% dentoalveolar and 37% skeletal.
Conclusions
Both groups showed favorable skeletal mandibular changes, which was more significant in the MSG. Regarding tooth movement, the maxillary splint headgear was more effective in uprighting upper incisors and reducing the overjet than cervical headgear appliance.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>32363550</pmid><doi>10.1186/s40510-020-00311-x</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2196-1042 |
ispartof | Progress in orthodontics, 2020-05, Vol.21 (1), p.11-11, Article 11 |
issn | 2196-1042 1723-7785 2196-1042 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_9e37dda0412943c4bea9fb36f90d8f9c |
source | Open Access: PubMed Central; Springer Nature - SpringerLink Journals - Fully Open Access |
subjects | Angle Class II Cephalometry Child Dental occlusion Dental overjet Dentistry Extraoral traction appliance Extraoral Traction Appliances Headgear Humans Incisor protrusion Incisors Malocclusion, Angle Class II Mandible Maxilla Medicine Retrospective Studies Splints Tooth Movement Techniques |
title | Dentoskeletal effects of the maxillary splint headgear in the early correction of Class II malocclusion |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T20%3A38%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dentoskeletal%20effects%20of%20the%20maxillary%20splint%20headgear%20in%20the%20early%20correction%20of%20Class%20II%20malocclusion&rft.jtitle=Progress%20in%20orthodontics&rft.au=Miguel,%20Jos%C3%A9%20Augusto%20M.&rft.date=2020-05-04&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=11&rft.epage=11&rft.pages=11-11&rft.artnum=11&rft.issn=2196-1042&rft.eissn=2196-1042&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s40510-020-00311-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2398159271%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c607t-754d37efe998ced03002b55263132b537e6fa46ebcbf7fbb1638ad2891b462013%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2397448023&rft_id=info:pmid/32363550&rfr_iscdi=true |