Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2018; 50(03): 205-216
DOI: 10.1055/a-0664-4956
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Skelettale Effekte der Growth Guide Appliance im Vergleich zur konventionellen Headgear-Therapie – eine retrospektive kephalometrische Kohortenstudie

Skeletal Effects of the Growth Guide Appliance Compared to Conventional Headgear Treatment – A Retrospective Cohort Study
Guido Herzog
1   Zentrum für Kieferorthopädie Winterthur, Privatpraxis, Schweiz
,
Claudio Herzog
1   Zentrum für Kieferorthopädie Winterthur, Privatpraxis, Schweiz
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
04 October 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Das Ziel dieser retrospektiven Kohortenstudie war, mittels kephalometrischer Auswertungen von Fernröntgenseitenbildern zu untersuchen, ob mit einer einfachen Erweiterung eines Headgears zu einer funktionskieferorthopädischen Apparatur das Unterkiefer-Wachstum (UK-WT) positiv beeinflusst werden kann.

Zu diesem Zweck wurde das UK-WT von Patienten, die mit einer Growth Guide Appliance behandelt wurden (Durchschnittsalter 10,27 Jahre, 17 Mädchen und 8 Knaben) mit Patienten verglichen, die mit einem konventionellen Headgear (HG) therapiert wurden (Durchschnittsalter 10,42 Jahre, 19 Mädchen und 8 Knaben). Es wurden alle Patienten miteinbezogen, deren Behandlungsphase in einer Privatpraxis während einem definierten Zeitraum abgeschlossen worden ist. Die Daten wurden „blind“ erfasst und ausgewertet. Die Gruppenunterschiede wurden mit dem nonparametrischen Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon-Test berechnet und zusätzlich den Werten der Zürcher Wachstumsstudie (1982–1984) gegenübergestellt.

Die GGA-Gruppe zeigte ein Unterkieferlängenwachstum gemessen an der Distanz CPg von 3,35 mm pro Jahr. Dies entspricht einer signifikanten Steigerung um zusätzliche 1,19 mm (55%) gegenüber der Headgear-Gruppe. Die Zunahme des Sekundärparameters SNB-Winkel betrug 0,69 Grad pro Jahr. Dies entspricht einer signifikanten Steigerung von 0,57 Grad gegenüber der Headgear-Gruppe.

Das vorgestellte Konzept zur Korrektur einer moderaten Klasse ll-Malokklusion am wachsenden Patienten mithilfe der Growth Guide Appliance ist ein hilfreiches Behandlungsverfahren zur Erhöhung des mandibulären skelettalen Korrekturanteils.

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to use lateral cephalometric radiographs to investigate whether a simple adjustment of a headgear to a functional orthodontic appliance could positively influence mandibular growth.

To this end, mandibular growth of patients treated with a Growth Guide appliance (average age 10.27 years, 17 girls and 8 boys) was compared with patients treated with a conventional headgear (HG) (average age 10.42 years, 19 girls and 8 boys). All patients were included whose treatment phase was completed in a private practice within a defined period of time. The data were recorded and evaluated “blindly”. The group differences were calculated using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test and additionally compared with the values from the Zurich growth study (1982–1984).

The GGA group showed lower jaw length growth of 3.35 mm per year measured at CPg distance. This represents a significant increase of 1.19 mm (55%) over the headgear group. The increase in the secondary parameter SNB angle was 0.69 degrees per year. This represents a significant increase of 0.57 degrees compared to the headgear group.

The presented concept for the correction of moderate Class II malocclusion in growing patients with the Growth Guide Appliance is a helpful treatment procedure for increasing the mandibular skeletal correction portion.

Schlüsselwörter

Growth Guide Appliance - Funktionskieferorthopädie - Klasse-II-Behandlung - abnehmbares FKO-Gerät - orofaziales Gleichgewicht

Key words

Growth Guide Appliance - functional orthodontics - treatment of Class II malocclusion - removable functional appliances - orofacial balance
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Kelly JE, Sanchez M, Van Kirk LE. An Assessment of the Occlusion of the Teeth of Children 6-11Years, United States. Vital Health Stat 1973; 11: 1-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Thilander B, Myrberg N. The prevalence of malocclusion in Swedish schoolchildren. Scand J Dent Res 1973; 81: 12-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kelly JE, Harvey CR. An assessment of the occlusion of the teeth of youths 12-17 years. Vital Health Stat 1977; 11: 1-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Infante-Rivard C, Payette M. Longitudinal study of caries, malocclusion and peridental disorders in 2037 Montreal children. II. Prevalence of problems of occlusion. J Can Dent Assoc 1981; 47: 322-330
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Helm S. Orthodontic treatment priorities in the Danish Child Dental Health Services. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1982; 10: 260-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Laine T, Hausen H. Occlusal anomalies in Finnish students related to age, sex, absent permanent teeth and orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 1983; 5: 125-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Papageorgiou SN, Kutschera E, Memmert S. et al. Effectiveness of early orthopaedic treatment with headgear: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 2017; 39: 176-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Livieratos FA, Johnston Jr LE. A comparison of one-stage and two-stage nonextraction alternatives in matched Class II samples. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 108: 118-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Battagel JM. The use of tensor analysis to investigate facial changes in treated class II division 1 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 1996; 18: 41-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cura N, Sarac M, Oztürk Y. et al. Orthodontic and orthopedic effects of Activator, Activator-HG combination, and Bass appliances: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 110: 36-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Omblus J, Malmgren O, Hagg U. Mandibular growth during initial treatment with the Bass orthopaedic appliance in relation to age and growth periods. Eur J Orthod 1997; 19: 47-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tulloch JF, Phillips C, Koch G. et al. The effect of early intervention on skeletal pattern in Class II malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 111: 391-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tulloch JF, Phillips C, Proffit WR. Benefit of early Class II treatment: progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113: 62-72 quiz 73–74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ghafari J, Shofer FS, Jacobsson-Hunt U. et al. Headgear versus function regulator in the early treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113: 51-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I – The hard tissues. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 501-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Keeling SD, Wheeler TT, King GJ. et al. Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113: 40-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Toth LR, McNamara Jr JA. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Frankel compared with an untreated Class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116: 597-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Patel HP, Moseley HC, Noar JH. Cephalometric determinants of successful functional appliance therapy. Angle Orthod 2002; 72: 410-417
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wheeler TT, McGorray SP, Dolce C. et al. Effectiveness of early treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 121: 9-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 O'Brien J, Wright K, Conboy F. et al. Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: Dental and skeletal effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 234-243 quiz 339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Yaqoob O, Dibiase AT, Fleming PS. et al. Use of the Clark Twin Block functional appliance with and without an upper labial bow: a randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 363-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Martina R, Cioffi I, Galeotti A. et al. Efficacy of the Sander bite-jumping appliance in growing patients with mandibular retrusion: a randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res 2013; 16: 116-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Burhan AS, Nawaya FR. Dentoskeletal effects of the Bite-Jumping Appliance and the Twin-Block Appliance in the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37: 330-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 O'Reilly MT, Yanniello GJ. Mandibular growth changes and maturation of cervical vertebrae – a longitudinal cephalometric study. Angle Orthod 1988; 58: 179-184
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara Jr. JA. Mandibular growth as related to cervical vertebral maturation and body height. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118: 335-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR. et al. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118: 159-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bjork A, Skieller V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod 1983; 5: 1-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York: Interscience Publications; 1940: 122-132
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Teuscher U. Quantitative Behandlungsresultate mit der Aktivator-Headgear-Kombination. Wachstum und Therapieeffekte. 1988. Hüthig Heidelberg;
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114: 15-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Buschang PH, Gandini LG. Junior, Mandibular skeletal growth and modelling between 10 and 15 years of age. Eur J Orthod 2002; 24: 69-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Firouz M, Zernik J, Nanda R. Dental and orthopedic effects of high-pull headgear in treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 102: 197-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kim KR, Muhl ZF. Changes in mandibular growth direction during and after cervical headgear treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119: 522-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Baumrind S, Korn EL. Patterns of change in mandibular and facial shape associated with the use of forces to retract the maxilla. Am J Orthod 1981; 80: 31-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 McNamara Jr. JA, Bookstein FL, Shaughnessy TG. Skeletal and dental changes following functional regulator therapy on class II patients. Am J Orthod 1985; 88: 91-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 De Almeida MR, Henriques JF, Ursi W. Comparative study of the Frankel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 121: 458-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Altenburger E, Ingervall B. The initial effects of the treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusions with the van Beek activator compared with the effects of the Herren activator and an activator-headgear combination. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 389-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Bendeus M, Hagg U, Rabie B. Growth and treatment changes in patients treated with a headgear-activator appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 121: 376-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Büyükerkmen A. et al. The effects of activator treatment on the craniofacial structures of Class II division 1 patients. Eur J Orthod 2003; 25: 87-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Clark WJ. The twin block traction technique. Eur J Orthod 1982; 4: 129-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of Twin Blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113: 104-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Patcas R, Herzog G, Peltomäki T. et al. New perspectives on the relationship between mandibular and statural growth. Eur J Orthod 2016; 38: 13-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L. et al. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129: 599 e1-12 discussion e1–6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Koretsi V, Zymperdikas VF, Papageorgiou SN. et al. Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37: 418-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Mills JR. The effect of functional appliances on the skeletal pattern. Br J Orthod 1991; 18: 267-275
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Teuscher U. Edgewise therapy with cervical and intermaxillary traction – influence on the position of the bony chin. Angle Orthod 1983; 53: 212-227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Woodside DG. Do functional appliances have an orthopedic effect?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113: 11-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar