Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2002; 34(4): 235-241
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-36883
Übersichtsartikel

© Georg Thieme Verlag

Literaturübersicht: Funktionskieferorthopädische Geräte und die Stimulation des Unterkieferwachstums[*]

Review of the literature: Current Concepts on functional appliances and mandibular growth stimulationA. R.  Collett
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
24 January 2003 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung:

Die Beeinflussung des Unterkieferwachstums durch funktionskieferorthopädische Geräte wird immer noch kontrovers diskutiert. Die meisten Arbeiten, die über positive Effekte von FKO-Apparaturen berichten, zeichnen sich durch eine mangelhafte wissenschaftliche Methodik aus. Daher sollte die Wirksamkeit der FKO-Geräte in erster Linie im Rahmen prospektiver randomisierter klinischer Studien überprüft werden. Nach bisherigem Kenntnisstand kann nicht davon ausgegangen werden, dass funktionskieferorthopädische Apparaturen das Unterkieferwachstum stimulieren und steigern können. Gelegentlich beobachtete positive Wachstumseffekte sind in aller Regel nicht substanziell und sind nicht stabil über einen längeren Zeitraum.

Summary

The mode of action of functional appliances, particularly in relation to stimulating mandibular growth, is a controversial subject. Many of the reports concerning growth effects of functional appliances have been characterized by poor methodology. In assessing functional appliances, results from prospective randomized clinical trials should be given prominence. On the basis of available evidence, it cannot be concluded that functional appliances are effective in stimulating and increasing mandibular growth in the long term. Although favourable growth changes have been reported following phase 1 therapy, they are generally not substantial and long term stability appears to be poor.

Schlüsselwörter:

Klasse-II-Behandlung - Funktionskieferorthopädie - FKO-Gerät - Unterkieferwachstum

Key words:

Class II treatment - dentofacial orthopaedics - functional appliance - mandibular growth

1 * Mit freundlicher Genehmigung der Universität von Adelaide. Original erschienen im Australian Dental Journal 2000; 45: 173-178

Literatur

  • 1 Ngan P W, Byczek E, Scheick J. Longitudinal evaluation of growth changes in Class II division 1 subjects.  Semin Orthod. 1997;  3(4) 222-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tulloch J F, Medland W, Tuncay O C. Methods used to evaluate growth modification in Class II malocclusion.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;  98(4) 340-347
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Nies A S, Spielberg S P. Principles of therapeutics. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, Molinoff PB, Ruddon RW, Gilman AG (eds). Goodman and Gilman's the pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 9th edn McGraw-Hill, New York 1996: 43-62
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Sackett D L. On identifying the best therapy. In: Trottman C-A, McNamara JA jr (eds). Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 30 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1995: 7-19
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Johnston L E. Growing jaws for fun and profit: A modest proposal. In: McNamara JA jr (ed). Growth modification: What works, what doesn't, and why. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 25 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1999: 63-86
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Sackett D L. The science of the art of clinical management. In: Vig PS, Ribbens KA (eds). Science and clinical judgement in orthodontics. Craniofacial growth series, Monograph 19 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1986: 237-251
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Sackett D L. Nine years later: A commentary on revisiting the Moyers symposium. In: Trotman C-A, McNamara JA jr (eds). Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 30 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1995: 1-5
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Johnston L E. Clinical studies in orthodontics: Taking the low road to Scotland. In: Trotman C-A, McNamara JA jr (eds). Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 30 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1995: 21-41
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Vig W L, Bennett M E, O'Brien K, Vayda D, Vig P S, Weyant R J. Orthodontic process and outcome: Efficacy and effectiveness studies. In: Trotman C-A, McNamara JA jr (eds). Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 30 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1995: 227-254
    Google Scholar
  • 10 McNamara J A. Neuromuscular and skeletal adaptations to altered function in the orofacial region.  Am J Orthod. 1973;  64(6) 578-606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 McNamara J A. The role of functional appliances in contemporary orthodontics. In: Johnston LE jr (ed). New vistas in orthodontics Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia 1985: 38-75
    Google Scholar
  • 12 McNamara J A. On the possibilities of stimulating mandibular growth. In: Graber LW (ed). Orthodontics: State of the art, essence of the science Mosby, St Louis 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Petrovic A G, Stutzmann J J, Lavergne J M. Mechanisms of craniofacial growth and modus operandi of functional appliances: A cell-level and cybernetic approach to orthodontic decision making. In: Carlson DS (ed). Craniofacial growth theory and orthodontic treatment: Craniofacial growth series, Monograph 23 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1990: 13-74
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Johnston L E. Functional appliances: a mortgage on mandibular position.  Aust Orthod J. 1996;  14(3) 154-157
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Derringer K. A cephalometric study to compare the effects of cervical traction and Andresen therapy in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion. Part 1 - Skeletal changes.  Br J Orthod. 1990;  17(1) 33-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fidler B C, Artun J, Joondeph D R, Little R M. Long-term stability of Angle Class II, division 1 malocclusions with successful occlusal results at end of active treatment.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;  107(3) 276-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lange D W, Kalra V, Broadbent B H, Powers M, Nelson S. Changes in soft tissue profile following treatment with the Bionator.  Angle Orthod. 1995;  65(6) 423-430
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 DeVincenzo J P. Changes in mandibular lenght before, during, and after successful orthopedic correction of Class II malocclusions, using a functional appliance.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;  99(3) 241-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mamandras A H, Allen L P. Mandibular response to orthodontic treatment with the Bionator appliance.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;  97(2) 113-120
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Erverdi N, Özkan G. A cephalometric investigation of effects of the Elastic Bite-block in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions.  Eur J Orthod. 1995;  17(5) 375-384
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ghafari J, Shofer F S, Jacobsson-Hunt U, Markowitz D L, Laster L L. 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(1) 51-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 McNamara J A, Bookstein F L, Shaughnessy T G. Skeletal and dental changes following functional regulator therapy on Class II patients.  Am J Orthod. 1985;  88(2) 91-110
    Google Scholar
  • 23 McNamara J A, Howe R P, Dischinger T G. A comparison of the Herbst and Fränkel appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;  98(2) 134-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 McNamara J A, Peterson J E, Alexander R G. Three dimensional diagnosis and management of Class II malocclusion in the mixed dentition.  Semin Orthod. 1996;  2(2) 114-137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Perillo L, Johnston L E, Ferro A. Permanence of skeletal changes after function regulator (FR-2) treatment of patients with retrusive Class II malocclusions.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;  109(2) 132-139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Righellis E G. Treatment effects of Fränkel, activator and extraoral traction appliances.  Angle Orthod. 1983;  53(2) 107-121
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Weiland F J, Ingervall B, Bantleon H-P, Droschl H. Initial effects of treatment of Class II malocclusion with the Herren activator, activator-headgear combination, and Jasper Jumper.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;  112(1) 19-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bishara S E, Ziaja R R. Functional appliances: a review.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;  95(3) 250-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tuncay O C, Tulloch J F. Apparatus criticus: methods used to evaluate growth modification in Class II malocclusion.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992;  102(6) 531-536
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Jakobsson S O. Cephalometric evaluation of treatment effect on Class II, division 1 malocclusions.  Am J Orthod. 1967;  53(6) 446-457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Drage K J, Hunt N P. Overjet relapse following functional appliance therapy.  Br J Orthod. 1990;  17(3) 205-213
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Creekmore T D, Radney L J. Fränkel appliance therapy: orthopedic or orthodontic?.  Am J Orthod. 1983;  83(2) 89-108
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Nelson C, Harkness M, Herbison P. Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;  104(2) 153-161
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Robertson N R. An examination of treatment changes in children treated with the function regulatur of Fränkel.  Am J Orthod. 1983;  83(4) 299-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rudzki-Janson I, Noachtar R. Functional appliance therapy with the Bionator.  Semin Orthod. 1998;  4(1) 33-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Wieslander L, Largerström L. The effect of activator treatment on Class II malocclusions.  Am J Orthod. 1979;  75(1) 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Pancherz H. Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric investigation.  Am J Orthod. 1979;  76(4) 423-442
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Lai M, McNamara J A. An evaluation of two-phase treatment with the Herbst appliance and preadjusted edgewise therapy.  Semin Orthod. 1998;  4(1) 46-58
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Hansen K, Pancherz H, Hägg U. Long-term effects of the Herbst appliance in relation to the treatment growth period: a cephalometric study.  Eur J Orthod. 1991;  13(6) 471-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Pancherz H. The nature of Class II relapse after Herbst appliance treatment: a cephalometric long-term investigation.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;  100(3) 220-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Pancherz H. The effects, limitations, and long-term dentofacial adaptations to treatment with the Herbst appliance.  Semin Orthod. 1997;  3(4) 232-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Pancherz H, Fackel U. The skeletofacial growth pattern pre- and post-dentofacial orthopaedics. A long-term study of Class II malocclusions treated with the Herbst appliance.  Eur J Orthod. 1990;  12(2) 209-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Wieslander L. Long-term effect of treatment with the headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Stability or relapse?.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;  104(4) 319-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Mills C M, McCulloch K J. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;  114(1) 15-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Lund D I, Sandler P J. The effects of twin blocks: a prospective controlled study.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;  113(1) 104-110
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Illing H M, Morris D O, Lee R T. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I - the hard tissues.  Eur J Orthod. 1998;  20(5) 501-516
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Keeling S D, King G J, Wheeler T T, McGorray S. Timing of Class II treatment: Rationale, methods and early results of an ongoing randomized clinical trial. In: Trotman C-A, McNamara JA jr (eds). Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 30 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1995: 81-112
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Keeling S D, Wheeler T T, King G J, Garvan C W, Cohen D A, Cabassa S, McGorray S P, Taylor M G. Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with Bionators and headgear.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;  113(1) 40-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Tulloch J F, Phillips C, Proffit W. Early vs late treatment of Class II malocclusion: Preliminary results from the UNC clinical trial. In: Trotman C-A, McNamara JA jr (eds). Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 30 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1995: 113-138
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Tulloch J F, Phillips C, Proffit W R. Benefit of early Class II treatment: progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;  113(1) 62-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Tulloch J F, Proffit W R, Phillips C. Influences on the outcome of early treatment for Class II malocclusion.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;  111(5) 533-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Tulloch J F, Phillips C, Koch G, Proffit W R. The effect of early intervention on skeletal pattern in Class II malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;  111(4) 391-400
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Adenwalla S T, Kronman J H. Class II, division 1 treatment with Fränkel and edgewise appliances. a comparative study of mandibular growth and facial esthetics.  Angle Orthod. 1985;  55(4) 281-298
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Gianelly A A, Arena S A, Bernstein L. A comparison of Class II treatment changes noted with the light wire, edgewise and Fränkel appliances.  Am J Orthod. 1984;  86(4) 269-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Johnston L E. A comparative analysis of Class II treatments. In: Vig PS, Ribbens KA (eds) Science and clinical judgement in orthodontics. Craniofacial growth series, Monograph 19 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1986: 103-148
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Livieratos F A, Johnston L E. A comparison of one-stage and two-stage nonextraction alternatives in matched Class II samples.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;  108(2) 118-131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Bondevik O. Treatment needs following activator-headgear therapy.  Angle Orthod. 1995;  65(6) 417-422
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 O'Brien K D, Robbins R, Vig K W, Vig P S, Shnorhokian H, Weyant R. The effectiveness of Class II, division 1 treatment.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;  107(3) 329-334
    Google Scholar

1 * Mit freundlicher Genehmigung der Universität von Adelaide. Original erschienen im Australian Dental Journal 2000; 45: 173-178

Dr. A. R. Collett

7 Dawson Street

AUS-Upper Ferntree Gully, Victoria 3156

Australia

Email: tonycol@netspace.net.au

      >