The Experts below are selected from a list of 302982 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Kevi Obrie - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth Class II Malocclusion in children and adolescents
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018Co-Authors: Klaus Bsl Atista, Adri Thiruvenkatachari, Jayne E Harriso, Kevi ObrieAbstract:Background Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year-old children in the UK. The condition develops when permanent teeth erupt. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress. Children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with dental braces to reduce the prominence of their teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait and provide treatment in adolescence. Objectives To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth initiated when children are seven to 11 years old ('early treatment' in two phases) compared to in adolescence at around 12 to 16 years old ('late treatment' in one phase); to assess the effects of late treatment compared to no treatment; and to assess the effects of different types of orthodontic braces. Search methods Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 27 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 27 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 27 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of orthodontic treatments to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II Malocclusion) in children and adolescents. We included trials that compared early treatment in children (two-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-braces versus late treatment in adolescents (one-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces, and trials that compared any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces versus no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (where treatment started at a similar age in the intervention groups).We excluded trials involving participants with a cleft lip or palate, or other craniofacial deformity/syndrome, and trials that recruited patients who had previously received surgical treatment for their Class II Malocclusion. Data collection and analysis Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the fixed-effect model for meta-analyses including two or three studies and the random-effects model for more than three studies. Main results We included 27 RCTs based on data from 1251 participants.Three trials compared early treatment with a functional appliance versus late treatment for overjet, ANB and incisal trauma. After phase one of early treatment (i.e. before the other group had received any intervention), there was a reduction in overjet and ANB reduction favouring treatment with a functional appliance; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no difference between groups in final overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18; 343 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43; 347 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Early treatment with functional appliances reduced the incidence of incisal trauma compared to late treatment (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.95; 332 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). The difference in the incidence of incisal trauma was clinically important with 30% (51/171) of participants reporting new trauma in the late treatment group compared to only 19% (31/161) of participants who had received early treatment.Two trials compared early treatment using headgear versus late treatment. After phase one of early treatment, headgear had reduced overjet and ANB; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in overjet (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12; 238 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26; 231 participants) (low-quality evidence). Early (two-phase) treatment with headgear reduced the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.80; 237 participants) (low-quality evidence), with almost half the incidence of new incisal trauma (24/117) compared to the late treatment group (44/120).Seven trials compared late treatment with functional appliances versus no treatment. There was a reduction in final overjet with both fixed functional appliances (MD -5.46 mm, 95% CI -6.63 to -4.28; 2 trials, 61 participants) and removable functional appliances (MD -4.62, 95% CI -5.33 to -3.92; 3 trials, 122 participants) (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in final ANB between fixed functional appliances and no treatment (MD -0.53°, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.22; 3 trials, 89 participants) (low-quality evidence), but removable functional appliances seemed to reduce ANB compared to no treatment (MD -2.37°, 95% CI -3.01 to -1.74; 2 trials, 99 participants) (low-quality evidence).Six trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with Twin Block versus other appliances and found no difference in overjet (0.08 mm, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.76; 4 trials, 259 participants) (low-quality evidence). The reduction in ANB favoured treatment with a Twin Block (-0.56°, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.16; 6 trials, 320 participants) (low-quality evidence).Three trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with removable functional appliances versus fixed functional appliances and found a reduction in overjet in favour of fixed appliances (0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.33; two trials, 154 participants) (low-quality evidence), and a reduction in ANB in favour of removable appliances (-1.04°, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.49; 3 trials, 185 participants) (low-quality evidence). Authors' conclusions Evidence of low to moderate quality suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective for reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment in adolescence. There appear to be no other advantages of providing early treatment when compared to late treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that, compared to no treatment, late treatment in adolescence with functional appliances, is effective for reducing the prominence of upper front teeth.
-
orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth Class II Malocclusion in children
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013Co-Authors: Adri Thiruvenkatachari, Jayne E Harriso, H V Worthingto, Kevi ObrieAbstract:BACKGROUND: Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year old children in the UK. The correction of this condition is one of the most common treatments performed by orthodontists. This condition develops when the child's permanent teeth erupt and children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with dental braces to reduce the prominence of the teeth. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress.If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait until the child is older and provide treatment in early adolescence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth when this treatment is initiated when the child is seven to 11 years old compared to when they are in early adolescence, or when treatment uses different types of orthodontic braces. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 April 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 17 April 2013) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 17 April 2013). There were no restrictions regarding language or publication date. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) on early treatment (either one or two-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-braces compared with late treatment with any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces; or, on any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces compared with no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (with treatment starting in children of similar ages in both groups) to correct prominent upper front teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently, used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes and a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses as there were fewer than four studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies based on data from 721 participants.Three trials (n = 343) compared early (two-phase) treatment (7-11 years of age) with a functional appliance, with adolescent (one-phase) treatment. Statistically significant differences in overjet, ANB and PAR scores were found in favour of functional appliance when the first phase of early treatment was compared with observation in the children due to receive treatment in adolescence. However, at the end of treatment in both groups, there was no evidence of a difference in the overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18) (low quality evidence), final ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43, P = 0.92), PAR score (MD 0.62, 95% CI -0.66 to 1.91, P = 0.34) or self concept score (MD 0.83, CI -2.31 to 3.97, P = 0.60). However, two-phase treatment with functional appliance showed a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, P = 0.04) (moderate quality evidence). The incidence of incisal trauma was clinically significant with 29% (54/185) of patients reporting new trauma incidence in the adolescent (one-phase) treatment group compared to only 20% (34/172) of patients receiving early (two-phase) treatment.Two trials (n = 285), compared early (two-phase) treatment using headgear, with adolescent (one-phase) treatment. Statistically significant differences in overjet and ANB were found in favour of headgear when the first phase of early treatment was compared with observation in the children due to receive treatment in adolescence. However, at the end of treatment in both groups, there was no evidence of a difference in the overjet (MD 0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12, P = 0.20) (low quality evidence), final ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26, P = 0.32) or PAR score (MD -1.55, 95% CI -3.70 to 0.60, P = 0.16). The incidence of incisal trauma was, however, statistically significantly reduced in the two-phase treatment group (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83, P = 0.009) (low quality evidence). The adolescent treatment group showed twice the incidence of incisal trauma (47/120) compared to the young children group (27/117).Two trials (n = 282) compared different types of appliances (headgear and functional appliance) for early (two-phase) treatment. At the end of the first phase of treatment statistically significant differences, in favour of functional appliances, were shown with respect to final overjet only. At the end of phase two, there was no evidence of a difference between appliances with regard to overjet (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.15, P = 0.26), final ANB (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.34, P= 0.52), PAR score (MD -0.81, 95% CI -2.21 to 0.58, P = 0.25) or the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.44, P = 0.44).Late orthodontic treatment for adolescents with functional appliances showed a statistically significant reduction in overjet of -5.22 mm (95% CI -6.51 to -3.93, P < 0.00001) and ANB of -2.37� (95% CI -3.01 to -1.74, P < 0.00001) when compared to no treatment (very low quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference in overjet when Twin Block was compared to other appliances (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.48, P = 0.95). However, a statistically significant reduction in ANB (-0.63�, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.08, P = 0.02) was shown in favour of Twin Block. There was no evidence of a difference in any reported outcome when Twin Block was compared with modifications of Twin Block.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of Activator, FORSUS FRD EZ appliances, R-appliance or AIBP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective in reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment when the child is in early adolescence. There appears to be no other advantages for providing treatment early when compared to treatment in adolescence.
-
early treatment for Class II Malocclusion and perceived improvements in facial profile
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2009Co-Authors: Kevi Obrie, Tatiana V Macfarlane, J Wrigh, Frances Conboy, Priscilla Appelbe, David Irnie, Stephe Chadwick, Iva Connolly, Mark Hammond, Nigel HarradineAbstract:Introduction The aims of this study were to assess whether early Twin-block appliance treatment improves the attractiveness of Class II profiles and to determine the orofacial features of a profile that most influence the perception of attractiveness. Methods Silhouetted profiles of 20 treated patients and 20 untreated controls randomly selected from 174 subjects (ages, 8-10 years) of a randomized, controlled trial into the effectiveness of early Class II treatment were assessed by 30 children (ages, 10-11 years) and 24 teaching staff using a 5-point Likert scale. Independent samples t tests were used to compare attractiveness ratings between the treated and untreated groups. Linear regression was used to determine the features defining attractiveness. Results Early orthodontic treatment resulted in improved perceptions of facial profile attractiveness. Profiles were likely to be rated as attractive if the overjet was smaller (P = 0.001) and no teeth showed (P Conclusions Profile silhouettes of children who had received early orthodontic treatment for Class II Malocclusion were perceived to be more attractive by peers than those of children who did not receive treatment.
-
effectiveness of treatment for Class II Malocclusion with the herbst or twin block appliances a randomized controlled trial
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2003Co-Authors: Kevi Obrie, J Wrigh, Frances Conboy, David Irnie, Stephe Chadwick, Iva Connolly, Yeweng Sanjie, N A Mandall, Paul Cook, Mark HammondAbstract:The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Herbst and Twin-block appliances for established Class II Division I Malocclusion. The study was a multicenter, randomized clinical trial carried out in orthodontic departments in the United Kingdom. A total of 215 patients (aged 11-14 years) were randomized to receive treatment with either the Herbst or the Twin-block appliance. Treatment with the Herbst appliance resulted in a lower failure-to-complete rate for the functional appliance phase of treatment (12.9%) than did treatment with Twin-block (33.6%). There were no differences in treatment time between appliances, but significantly more appointments (3) were needed for repair of the Herbst appliance than for the Twin-block. There were no differences in skeletal and dental changes between the appliances; however, the final occlusal result and skeletal discrepancy were better for girls than for boys. Because of the high cooperation rates of patients using it, the Herbst appliance could be the appliance of choice for treating adolescents with Class II Division 1 Malocclusion. The trade-off for use of the Herbst is more appointments for appliance repair.
Annette Pluddema - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
long term effects of functional appliances in treated versus untreated patients with Class II Malocclusion a systematic review and meta analysis
PLOS ONE, 2019Co-Authors: Giorgio Cacciatore, Alessandro Ugolini, Chiarella Sforza, Oghenekome A Gbinigie, Annette PluddemaAbstract:© 2019 Cacciatore et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Objective To assess the cephalometric skeletal and soft-tissue of functional appliances in treated versus untreated Class II subjects in the long-term (primarily at the end of growth, secondarily at least 3 years after retention). Search methods Unrestricted electronic search of 24 databases and additional manual searches up to March 2018. Selection criteria Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials reporting on cephalometric skeletal and soft-tissue measurements of Class II patients (aged 16 years or under) treated with functional appliances, worn alone or in combination with multi-bracket therapy, compared to untreated Class II subjects. Data collection and analysis Mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated with the random-effects model. Data were analysed at 2 primary time points (above 18 years of age, at the end of growth according to the Cervical Vertebral Maturation method) and a secondary time point (at least 3 years after retention). The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed according to the ROBINS tool and GRADE system, respectively. Results Eight non-randomised studies published in 12 papers were included. Functional appliances produced a significant improvement of the maxillo-mandibular relationship, at almost all time points (Wits appraisal at the end of growth, MD -3.52 mm, 95% CI -5.11 to -1.93, P < 0.0001). The greatest increase in mandibular length was recorded in patients aged 18 years and above (Co-Gn, MD 3.20 mm, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.08, P = 0.0009), although the improvement of the mandibular projection was negligible or not significant. The quality of evidence was ‘very low’ for most of the outcomes at both primary time points. Conclusions Functional appliances may be effective in correcting skeletal Class II Malocclusion in the long-term, however the quality of the evidence was very low and the clinical significance was limited.
Moschos A Papadopoulos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
skeletal and dental effectiveness of treatment of Class II Malocclusion with headgear a systematic review and meta analysis
Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice, 2017Co-Authors: Riccardo Nucera, Angela Militi, Antonino Lo Giudice, Vanessa Longo, Rosamaria Fastuca, Alberto Caprioglio, Giancarlo Cordasco, Moschos A PapadopoulosAbstract:Abstract Objective To evaluate the skeletal and dental effects of headgear treatment by systematically reviewing the best available scientific evidence. Materials and Methods A survey of articles published up to February 2017 investigating the effects of headgear in the treatment of patients with Class II Malocclusion was performed using 19 electronic databases. Only randomized clinical trials and prospective controlled clinical trials investigating growing patients with Class II Malocclusion treated with headgear were included. Two authors performed independently study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. All pooled data analyses were performed using the random-effect model. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated. Results In total, 6 trials were included (4 randomized clinical trials and 2 prospective controlled clinical trials), grouping data from 337 patients (170 treated patients and 167 untreated controls). The ages of the patients varied across the studies, but the majority of the trials had a sample with an age range between 8 and 9 years. The times of daily wear of the appliance varied across studies from 8 to 14 h/d. The significant mean differences in treatment effects compared with the untreated controls were −1.41° per year for SNA angle cephalometric parameter (95% confidence interval [CI]: −2.25° to −0.56°), −0.57 mm/y for anterior maxillary displacement (95% CI: −0.75 to −0.40 mm), −1.42° per year for ANB angle cephalometric parameter (95% CI: −2.12° to −0.72°), and −1.31 mm/y for the overjet cephalometric parameter (95% CI: −2.34 to −0.29 mm). Conclusion Headgear treatment is effective in restricting sagittal maxillary growth and reducing the overjet in the short term.
-
treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with Class II Malocclusion a systematic review and meta analysis
European Journal of Ophthalmology, 2015Co-Authors: Vasileios F Zymperdikas, Vasiliki Koretsi, Spyrido N Papageorgiou, Moschos A PapadopoulosAbstract:Summary Objective: To assess the treatment ef fects of removable functional appliances (RFAs) in treated versus untreated patients with Class II Malocclusion by means of lateral cephalometric radiographs. Search methods: Unrestricted electronic search of 1 8 databases and manual searches up to October 2013. Selection criteria: Prospecti ve randomized and non-randomized controlled trials reporting on cephalometric angular measurements of Class II patients treated with RFAs and their matched controls. Data collection and analysis: Skeletal, dental, and sof t tissue changes were annualized and stratified to short- and long-term effects. Methodological limitations were evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Downs and Black checklist. Mean differences (MDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from random-effects meta-analyses. Patient- or appliance-related subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with mixed-effects models. Results: Seventeen studies were included (1 031 patients; mean age: 10.6 years), with most of them originating from university clinics and reporting short-term effects (directly after the removal of RFAs). Treatment was associated with minimal reduction of SNA angle (11 studies, MD = −0.28 degree/year, 95% CI: −0.44 to −0.12 degree/year), minimal increase of SNB angle (11 studies, MD = 0.62 degree/year, 95% CI: 0.36–0.88 degree/year), and small decrease of ANB angle (10 studies, MD = −1.14 degree/year, 95% CI: −1.52 to −0.77 degree/year) compared to untreated Class II patients. RFAs caused significant dentoalveolar changes (predominantly retroclination of the upper incisors) and significant soft tissue changes. Skeletal changes were more pronounced with the Twin Block appliance. Various patient- or appliance-related factors influenced the results of the subgroup analyses, while the sensitivity analyses indicated robustness. Existing evidence was inadequate to assess the long-term effectiveness of RFAs. Conclusions: The short-term evidence indicates that RFAs are effective in improving Class II Malocclusion, although their effects are mainly dentoalveolar, rather than skeletal.
-
skeletal anchorage in orthodontic treatment of Class II Malocclusion
Journal of Orthodontics, 2015Co-Authors: Moschos A PapadopoulosAbstract:Skeletal anchorage in orthodontic treatment of Class ll Malocclusion , Skeletal anchorage in orthodontic treatment of Class ll Malocclusion , کتابخانه دیجیتالی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی و خدمات درمانی شهید بهشتی
-
orthodontic treatment of Class II Malocclusion with miniscrew implants
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2008Co-Authors: Moschos A PapadopoulosAbstract:Introduction Orthodontic treatment of patients with Class II Malocclusion who show poor compliance with conventional treatment modalities such as extraoral headgear, functional orthopedic appliances, or conventional fixed appliances with intermaxillary elastics, can be challenging. Noncompliance approaches can be used, but they often pose anchorage problems. Methods This article describes the orthodontic treatment of a girl, aged 11.5 years, with a Class II Malocclusion, a deep bite, and increased overjet. Initially, an intraoral miniscrew implant supported distalization system (MISDS) was used to distalize the maxillary first molars. Temporary stationary anchorage was provided by 2 miniscrew implants that were placed paramedian in the anterior region of the palate. After distalization, the system was modified slightly by a chair-side procedure and then used to provide the desired stationary anchorage for subsequent anterior tooth retraction in conjunction with conventional full fixed orthodontic appliances. Results After 18 months of treatment, a Class I molar relationship was achieved, and the deep bite, overjet, posterior intercuspation, and facial esthetics were improved. Biomechanical considerations, clinical efficacy, and the advantages and potential complications of MISDS treatment are discussed. Conclusions This case report illustrates the use of MISDS to distalize the maxillary molars and retract the anterior teeth, providing noncompliance, nonextraction, and efficient approach for the orthodontic treatment of patients with Class II Malocclusion, which is initially invisible.
Adri Thiruvenkatachari - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth Class II Malocclusion in children and adolescents
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018Co-Authors: Klaus Bsl Atista, Adri Thiruvenkatachari, Jayne E Harriso, Kevi ObrieAbstract:Background Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year-old children in the UK. The condition develops when permanent teeth erupt. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress. Children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with dental braces to reduce the prominence of their teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait and provide treatment in adolescence. Objectives To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth initiated when children are seven to 11 years old ('early treatment' in two phases) compared to in adolescence at around 12 to 16 years old ('late treatment' in one phase); to assess the effects of late treatment compared to no treatment; and to assess the effects of different types of orthodontic braces. Search methods Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 27 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 27 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 27 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of orthodontic treatments to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II Malocclusion) in children and adolescents. We included trials that compared early treatment in children (two-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-braces versus late treatment in adolescents (one-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces, and trials that compared any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces versus no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (where treatment started at a similar age in the intervention groups).We excluded trials involving participants with a cleft lip or palate, or other craniofacial deformity/syndrome, and trials that recruited patients who had previously received surgical treatment for their Class II Malocclusion. Data collection and analysis Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the fixed-effect model for meta-analyses including two or three studies and the random-effects model for more than three studies. Main results We included 27 RCTs based on data from 1251 participants.Three trials compared early treatment with a functional appliance versus late treatment for overjet, ANB and incisal trauma. After phase one of early treatment (i.e. before the other group had received any intervention), there was a reduction in overjet and ANB reduction favouring treatment with a functional appliance; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no difference between groups in final overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18; 343 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43; 347 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Early treatment with functional appliances reduced the incidence of incisal trauma compared to late treatment (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.95; 332 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). The difference in the incidence of incisal trauma was clinically important with 30% (51/171) of participants reporting new trauma in the late treatment group compared to only 19% (31/161) of participants who had received early treatment.Two trials compared early treatment using headgear versus late treatment. After phase one of early treatment, headgear had reduced overjet and ANB; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in overjet (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12; 238 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26; 231 participants) (low-quality evidence). Early (two-phase) treatment with headgear reduced the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.80; 237 participants) (low-quality evidence), with almost half the incidence of new incisal trauma (24/117) compared to the late treatment group (44/120).Seven trials compared late treatment with functional appliances versus no treatment. There was a reduction in final overjet with both fixed functional appliances (MD -5.46 mm, 95% CI -6.63 to -4.28; 2 trials, 61 participants) and removable functional appliances (MD -4.62, 95% CI -5.33 to -3.92; 3 trials, 122 participants) (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in final ANB between fixed functional appliances and no treatment (MD -0.53°, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.22; 3 trials, 89 participants) (low-quality evidence), but removable functional appliances seemed to reduce ANB compared to no treatment (MD -2.37°, 95% CI -3.01 to -1.74; 2 trials, 99 participants) (low-quality evidence).Six trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with Twin Block versus other appliances and found no difference in overjet (0.08 mm, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.76; 4 trials, 259 participants) (low-quality evidence). The reduction in ANB favoured treatment with a Twin Block (-0.56°, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.16; 6 trials, 320 participants) (low-quality evidence).Three trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with removable functional appliances versus fixed functional appliances and found a reduction in overjet in favour of fixed appliances (0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.33; two trials, 154 participants) (low-quality evidence), and a reduction in ANB in favour of removable appliances (-1.04°, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.49; 3 trials, 185 participants) (low-quality evidence). Authors' conclusions Evidence of low to moderate quality suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective for reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment in adolescence. There appear to be no other advantages of providing early treatment when compared to late treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that, compared to no treatment, late treatment in adolescence with functional appliances, is effective for reducing the prominence of upper front teeth.
-
orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth Class II Malocclusion in children
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013Co-Authors: Adri Thiruvenkatachari, Jayne E Harriso, H V Worthingto, Kevi ObrieAbstract:BACKGROUND: Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year old children in the UK. The correction of this condition is one of the most common treatments performed by orthodontists. This condition develops when the child's permanent teeth erupt and children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with dental braces to reduce the prominence of the teeth. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress.If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait until the child is older and provide treatment in early adolescence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth when this treatment is initiated when the child is seven to 11 years old compared to when they are in early adolescence, or when treatment uses different types of orthodontic braces. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 April 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 17 April 2013) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 17 April 2013). There were no restrictions regarding language or publication date. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) on early treatment (either one or two-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-braces compared with late treatment with any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces; or, on any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces compared with no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (with treatment starting in children of similar ages in both groups) to correct prominent upper front teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently, used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes and a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses as there were fewer than four studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies based on data from 721 participants.Three trials (n = 343) compared early (two-phase) treatment (7-11 years of age) with a functional appliance, with adolescent (one-phase) treatment. Statistically significant differences in overjet, ANB and PAR scores were found in favour of functional appliance when the first phase of early treatment was compared with observation in the children due to receive treatment in adolescence. However, at the end of treatment in both groups, there was no evidence of a difference in the overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18) (low quality evidence), final ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43, P = 0.92), PAR score (MD 0.62, 95% CI -0.66 to 1.91, P = 0.34) or self concept score (MD 0.83, CI -2.31 to 3.97, P = 0.60). However, two-phase treatment with functional appliance showed a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, P = 0.04) (moderate quality evidence). The incidence of incisal trauma was clinically significant with 29% (54/185) of patients reporting new trauma incidence in the adolescent (one-phase) treatment group compared to only 20% (34/172) of patients receiving early (two-phase) treatment.Two trials (n = 285), compared early (two-phase) treatment using headgear, with adolescent (one-phase) treatment. Statistically significant differences in overjet and ANB were found in favour of headgear when the first phase of early treatment was compared with observation in the children due to receive treatment in adolescence. However, at the end of treatment in both groups, there was no evidence of a difference in the overjet (MD 0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12, P = 0.20) (low quality evidence), final ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26, P = 0.32) or PAR score (MD -1.55, 95% CI -3.70 to 0.60, P = 0.16). The incidence of incisal trauma was, however, statistically significantly reduced in the two-phase treatment group (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83, P = 0.009) (low quality evidence). The adolescent treatment group showed twice the incidence of incisal trauma (47/120) compared to the young children group (27/117).Two trials (n = 282) compared different types of appliances (headgear and functional appliance) for early (two-phase) treatment. At the end of the first phase of treatment statistically significant differences, in favour of functional appliances, were shown with respect to final overjet only. At the end of phase two, there was no evidence of a difference between appliances with regard to overjet (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.15, P = 0.26), final ANB (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.34, P= 0.52), PAR score (MD -0.81, 95% CI -2.21 to 0.58, P = 0.25) or the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.44, P = 0.44).Late orthodontic treatment for adolescents with functional appliances showed a statistically significant reduction in overjet of -5.22 mm (95% CI -6.51 to -3.93, P < 0.00001) and ANB of -2.37� (95% CI -3.01 to -1.74, P < 0.00001) when compared to no treatment (very low quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference in overjet when Twin Block was compared to other appliances (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.48, P = 0.95). However, a statistically significant reduction in ANB (-0.63�, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.08, P = 0.02) was shown in favour of Twin Block. There was no evidence of a difference in any reported outcome when Twin Block was compared with modifications of Twin Block.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of Activator, FORSUS FRD EZ appliances, R-appliance or AIBP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective in reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment when the child is in early adolescence. There appears to be no other advantages for providing treatment early when compared to treatment in adolescence.
James A Mcnamara - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
three dimensional changes of the upper airway in patients with Class II Malocclusion treated with the herbst appliance a cone beam computed tomography study
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2020Co-Authors: Paula Moreira Oliveira, Lorenzo Franchi, James A Mcnamara, Paula Loureiro Cheibvilefo, Henrique Parsia Gontijo, Camilo Aquino Melgaco, Ernardo Quiroga SoukiAbstract:Introduction This study aimed to determine the volumetric effects on the upper airways of growing patients with Class II Malocclusion treated with the Herbst appliance (HA). Methods Volumetric measurements of the upper airways of 42 skeletal Class II Malocclusion patients (mean age: 13.8 ± 1.2 years; ranging from 12.0 to 16.9 years) were assessed using cone-beam computed tomography scans acquired before treatment (T0) and approximately 1 year later (T1). The sample comprised a Herbst appliance group (HA group [HAG]; n = 24), and a comparison group (comparison group [CG]; n = 18) of orthodontic patients who had received dental treatments other than mandibular advancement with dentofacial orthopedics. Results In CG, nasopharynx and oropharynx volumes decreased slightly during the observation period (9% and 3%, respectively), whereas the nasal cavity volume increased significantly (12%; P = 0.046). In HAG, there was an increase in the volume of all regions (nasal cavity, 5.5%; nasopharynx, 11.7%; and oropharynx, 29.7%). However, only the oropharynx showed a statistically significant increase (P = 0.003), presenting significant volumetric changes along the time (T1-T0) in HAG. Conclusion Mandibular advancement with the HA significantly increased the volume of the oropharynx, but no significant volumetric modifications were observed in the nasal cavity and nasopharynx.
-
treatment effects of the carriere motion 3d appliance for the correction of Class II Malocclusion in adolescents
Angle Orthodontist, 2019Co-Authors: Hera Kimberma, James A Mcnamara, Joel P Lints, Craig Mcmulle, Lorenzo FranchiAbstract:ABSTRACT Objectives: To determine the treatment effects produced in Class II patients by the Carriere® Motion 3D™ appliance (CMA) followed by full fixed appliances (FFA). Materials and Methods: Thi...
-
treatment timing of mara and fixed appliance therapy of Class II Malocclusion
European Journal of Ophthalmology, 2013Co-Authors: Luis Tomas Huanca Ghislanzoni, Tiziano Accetti, James A Mcnamara, Douglas Toll, Efisio Defraia, Lorenzo FranchiAbstract:The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of timing on Mandibular Anterior Repositioning Appliance (MARA) and fixed appliance treatment of Class II Malocclusion in a prospective clinical trial. The treated sample consisted of 51 consecutively treated patients at prepubertal ( n = 21), pubertal ( n = 15), and postpubertal ( n = 15) stages of development. Control groups for the three treated groups were generated from growth data of untreated Class II subjects. Lateral cephalograms were digitized and superimposed via cephalometric software at T1 (pre-treatment) and T2 (after comprehensive treatment). The T1–T2 changes in the treated groups were compared to those in their corresponding control groups with Mann–Whitney tests with Bonferroni correction. Mandibular elongation was greater at the pubertal stage (Co–Gn +2.6 mm, with respect to controls). Headgear effect on the maxilla was greater in the pre-peak sample (Co–A −1.9 mm, with respect to controls). Dentoalveolar compensations (proclination of lower incisors, extrusion and mesialization of lower molars, and reduction in the overbite) were significant in the pre-peak and post-peak groups. Optimal timing for Class II treatment with MARA appliance is at the pubertal growth spurt, with enhanced mandibular skeletal changes and minimal dentoalveolar compensations.
-
long term skeletal and dental effects and treatment timing for functional appliances in Class II Malocclusion
Angle Orthodontist, 2013Co-Authors: Lorenzo Franchi, James A Mcnamara, Chiara Pavoni, Kurt Faltin, Paola CozzaAbstract:ABSTRACT Objective: To analyze the long-term skeletal and dentoalveolar effects and to evaluate treatment timing of Class II treatment with functional appliances followed by fixed appliances. Mat...
-
improving Class II Malocclusion as a side effect of rapid maxillary expansion a prospective clinical study
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2010Co-Authors: Susa S Gues, James A Mcnamara, Tiziano Accetti, Lorenzo FranchiAbstract:Introduction The objective of this prospective clinical study was to evaluate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects induced by rapid maxillary expansion (RME) therapy in mixed dentition patients with Class II Division 1 Malocclusion compared with a matched untreated Class II Division 1 control group. Methods The treatment sample consisted of cephalometric records of 50 patients with Class II Malocclusion (19 boys, 31 girls) treated with an RME protocol including an acrylic splint expander. Some patients also had a removable mandibular Schwarz appliance or maxillary incisor bracketing as part of their treatment protocol. Postexpansion, the patients were stabilized with a removable maintenance plate or a transpalatal arch. The mean age at the start of treatment of the RME group was 8.8 years (T1), with a prephase 2 treatment cephalogram (T2) taken 4.0 years later. The control sample, derived from the records of 3 longitudinal growth studies, consisted of the cephalometric records of 50 Class II subjects (28 boys, 22 girls). The mean age of initial observation for the control group was 8.9 years, and the mean interval of observation was 4.1 years. All subjects in both groups were prepubertal at T1 and showed comparable prevalence rates for prepubertal or postpubertal stages at T2. Independent-sample Student t tests were used to examine between-group differences. Results Class II patients treated with the described bonded RME protocol showed statistically significant increases in mandibular length and advancement of pogonion relative to nasion perpendicular. The acrylic splint RME had significant effects on the anteroposterior relationship of the maxilla and the mandible, as shown by the improvements toward Class I in the maxillomandibular differential value, the Wits appraisal value, and the ANB angle. Patients treated with the bonded RME showed the greatest effects of therapy at the occlusal level, specifically highly significant improvement of Class II molar relationship and decrease in overjet. Treatment with the acrylic splint RME had no sustainable effects on the skeletal vertical dimension, maxillary skeletal position, or maxillary dentoalveolar dimensions. Conclusions This study suggests that the protocol described including treatment with a bonded rapid maxillary expander used in the early mixed dentition in Class II Division 1 patients can help to improve the Class II Malocclusion as a side-effect, both skeletally and dentally. Evidence for this phenomenon was based previously on anecdotal data; the results of this study show that the improvements are far more pervasive than anticipated.