Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.02221
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Skeletal changes produced by cervical and parietal headgears: a cephalometric evaluation

Avaliação cefalométrica das alterações esqueléticas decorrentes do uso do aparelho extrabucal com ancoragens cervical e parietal

Anderson Jaña ROSA; Oswaldo de Vasconcellos VILELLA

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.02221 Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.50, e20210022, 2021
PDF
Downloads: 0
Views: 391

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Extraoral strength is the most common strategy to correct Angle Class II malocclusion, restricting and redirecting the maxillary growth.

Objective: To evaluate the skeletal changes resulting from the use of headgear, with cervical and parietal anchorages, associated with a full fixed orthodontic appliance, in growing patients with Class II malocclusion (Angle) treated in the clinic of an orthodontic training center.

Material and method: The ages at the beginning and end of the treatment, anchorage type, and the values of some cephalometric variables were obtained from the clinical files. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 56 patient files were selected. Then, the sample was divided into two groups, according to the anchorage type: cervical (n=30) and parietal (n=26). The differences between the initial (T1) and final (T2) values of cephalometric measurements SNA, SNB, ANB, AO-BO, GoGn.SN and LHF (percentage of lower facial height to total facial height) were evaluated in both groups.

Result: Significant differences between T1 and T2 were found relative to SNB and ANB variables in both groups. The AO-BO variable presented a statistically significant difference only in the cervical group. The remaining variables did not show significant differences between T1 and T2.

Conclusion: The skeletal changes resulting from the use of cervical or parietal anchorage were very similar. There was a decrease in the sagittal discrepancy between the maxillary bones due to forward displacement of the mandible, without significant vertical changes.

Keywords

Extraoral traction appliances, malocclusion Angle Class II, orthodontics

Resumo

Resumo: Introdução: A força extrabucal é a estratégia mais comum para corrigir a má oclusão de Classe II de Angle, restringindo e redirecionando o crescimento maxilar.

Objetivo: Avaliar as alterações esqueléticas decorrentes do uso do aparelho extrabucal, com ancoragens cervical e parietal, associado ao aparelho ortodôntico fixo, em pacientes em crescimento com má oclusão de Classe II (Angle) tratados na clínica de um centro de treinamento ortodôntico.

Material e método: As idades ao início e ao término do tratamento, o tipo de ancoragem, e os valores de algumas variáveis cefalométricas foram obtidos dos arquivos clínicos. Após a aplicação dos critérios de inclusão e exclusão, foram selecionados 56 prontuários. Em seguida, a amostra foi dividida em dois grupos, de acordo com a ancoragem: cervical (n= 30) e parietal (n=26). As diferenças entre os valores inicial (T1) e final (T2) das variáveis cefalométricas SNA, SNB, ANB, AO-BO, GoGn.SN e AFI (porcentagem da altura facial inferior em relação à altura facial total) foram avaliadas em ambos os grupos.

Resultado: Diferenças significativas entre T1 e T2 foram encontradas em relação às variáveis SNB e ANB em ambos os grupos. A variável AO-BO apresentou diferença estatisticamente significante apenas no grupo cervical. As demais variáveis não apresentaram diferenças significantes entre T1 e T2.

Conclusão: As alterações esqueléticas decorrentes do uso das ancoragens cervical e parietal foram muito semelhantes. Houve diminuição da discrepância anteroposterior entre a maxila e a mandíbula devido ao deslocamento anterior da mandíbula, sem alterações verticais significativas.
 

Palavras-chave

Aparelhos de tração extrabucal, má oclusão de Angle Classe II, ortodontia

References

1 Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dental Cosmos. 1899 Mar;41(3):248-64.

2 Farret MM, Lima EM, Araújo VP, Rizzatto SMD, Menezes LM, Grossi ML. Molar changes with cervical headgear alone or in combination with rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod. 2008 Sep;78(5):847-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/080207-360.1. PMid:18298206.

3 Henriques FP, Janson G, Henriques JFC, Pupulim DC. Effects of cervical headgear appliance: a systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015 Jul-Aug;20(4):76-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.20.4.076-081.oar. PMid:26352849.

4 Kirjavainen M, Hurmerinta K, Kirjavainen T. Facial profile changes in early class II correction with cervical headgear. Angle Orthod. 2007 Nov;77(6):960-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/092106-384. PMid:18004917.

5 Baptista AA, Galindo AGS, Pinheiro CC, Motta AFJ, Vilella OV, Mucha JN. A prevalência de maloclusões em escolares de Niterói – 1ª parte. Rev Flumin Odontol. 1997;6(1):12-6.

6 Freitas MR, Freitas DS, Pinheiro FHSL, Freitas KMS. Prevalência das más oclusões em pacientes inscritos para tratamento ortodôntico na Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru. Rev Fac Odontol Bauru. 2002;10(3):164-9.

7 Nanda RS. The contributions of craniofacial growth to clinical orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000 May;117(5):553-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70197-1. PMid:10799112.

8 Maruo IT, Maruo H, Saga AY, Oliveira DD, Argenta MA, Tanaka OM. Tridimensional finite element analysis of teeth movement induced by different headgear forces. Prog Orthod. 2016 Dec;17(1):18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-016-0130-4. PMid:27264500.

9 Phan XL, Schneider BJ, Sadowsky C, BeGole EA. Effects of orthodontic treatment on mandibular rotation and displacement in Angle class II division 1 malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2004 Apr;74(2):174-83. PMid:15132443.

10 Piva LM, Brito HHA, Leite HR, O’Reilly M. Effects of cervical headgear and fixed appliances on the space available for maxillary second molars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Sep;128(3):366-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.032. PMid:16168333.

11 Wieslander L. The effect of orthodontic treatment on the concurrent development of the craniofacial complex. Am J Orthod. 1963 Jan;49(1):15-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(63)90063-0.

12 Barton JJ. High-pull headgear versus cervical traction: a cephalometric comparison. Am J Orthod. 1972 Nov;62(5):517-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(72)90027-9. PMid:4507143.

13 Casaccia GR, Gomes JC, Squeff LR, Penedo ND, Elias CN, Gouvêa JP, et al. Analysis of initial movement of maxillary molars submitted to extraoral forces: a 3D study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2010 Out;15(5):37-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512010000500006.

14 Ibitayo AO, Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger J, Bayirli B. Dentoskeletal effects of functional appliances vs bimaxillary surgery in hyperdivergent class II patients. Angle Orthod. 2011 Mar;81(2):304-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/060110-297.1. PMid:21208084.

15 Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S. Treating Class II malocclusion in children. Vertical skeletal effects of high-pull or low-pull headgear during comprehensive orthodontic treatment and retention. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015 May;18(2):86-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12062. PMid:25545335.

16 Bilbo EE, Marshall SD, Southard KA, Allareddy V, Holton N, Thames AM, et al. Long term skeletal effects of high-pull headgear followed by fixed appliances for the treatment of class II malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2018 Sep;88(5):530-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/091517-620.1. PMid:29667470.

17 Tüfekçi E, Allen SB, Best AM, Lindauer SJ. Current trends in headgear use for the treatment of class II malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2016 Jul;86(4):584-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/041315-242.1. PMid:26401825.

18 Rosa AJ, Nascimento RR, Mucha JN, Vilella OV. Effects of the cervical headgear in growing Angle Class II malocclusion patients: a prospective study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2020 Apr;25(2):25-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.25.2.025-031.oar. PMid:32490924.

19 Lima RMA Fo, Lima AL, Ruellas ACO. Mandibular changes in skeletal class II patients treated with Kloehn cervical headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Jul;124(1):83-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00237-3. PMid:12867902.

20 Almeida-Pedrin RR, Henriques JFC, Almeida RR, Almeida MR, McNamara JA Jr. Effects of the pendulum appliance, cervical headgear, and 2 premolar extractions followed by fixed appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Dec;136(6):833-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.12.032. PMid:19962606.

21 Baccetti T, Franchi L, Stahl F. Comparison of 2 comprehensive Class II treatment protocols including the bonded Herbst and headgear appliances: a double-blind study of consecutively treated patients at puberty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jun;135(6):698.e1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.03.015. PMid:19524823.

22 Lione R, Franchi L, Laganà G, Cozza P. Effects of cervical headgear and pendulum appliance on vertical dimension in growing subjects: a retrospective controlled clinical trial. Eur J Orthod. 2015 Jun;37(3):338-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju061. PMid:25316493.

23 Tamburús VS, Pereira JS No, Siqueira VCV, Tamburús WL. Treatment effects on class II division 1 high angle patients treated according to the bioprogressive therapy (cervical headgear and lower utility arch), with emphasis on vertical control. Dental Press J Orthod. 2011 May-June;16(3):70-8.

24 Oosthuizen L, Dijkman JF, Evans WG. A mechanical appraisal of the Kloehn extraoral assembly. Angle Orthod. 1973 Jul;43(3):221-32. PMid:4515770.

25 Jacobson A. A key to the understanding of extraoral forces. Am J Orthod. 1979 Apr;75(4):361-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(79)90159-3. PMid:285613.
 

61d5a342a953950abe225fb5 rou Articles
Links & Downloads
1807-2577 (Electronic)
Rev. odontol. UNESP ©2024 All rights reserved.

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections