The Experts below are selected from a list of 3459 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Paul Mccrory - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Does padded Headgear prevent head injury in rugby union football
Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 2009Co-Authors: Andrew S. Mcintosh, Caroline F. Finch, Paul Mccrory, John P. Best, David J. Chalmers, Rory WolfeAbstract:MCINTOSH, A. S., P. MCCRORY, C. F. FINCH,-J. P. BEST, D. J. CHALMERS, and R. WOLFE. Does Padded Headgear Prevent Head Injury in Rugby Union Football? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 306-313. 2009. Background: Concussion is a serious problem in many contact sports, including rugby union football. The study's primary aim was to measure the efficacy of padded Headgear in reducing the rates of head injury or concussion. Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial with three arms was conducted with rugby union football teams as the unit of randomization. Teams consisted of males participating in under 13-, 15-, 18-, and 20-yr age group competitions. The interventions were "standard" and "modified" padded Headgear. Headgear wearing and injury were measured for each study team at each game over two seasons. Results: Eighty-two teams participated in year I and 87 in year 2. A total of 1493 participants (10,040 player hours) were in the control group, 1128 participants (8170 player hours) were assigned to the standard Headgear group, and 1474 participants,(10,650 player hours) were assigned to the modified Headgear group. The compliance rates were low in all groups, but 46% of participants wore standard Headgear. An intention-to-treat analysis showed no differences in the rates of head injury or concussion between controls and Headgear arms. Incidence rate ratios for standard Headgear wearers referenced to controls were 0.95 and 1.02 for game and missed game injuries. Analyses of injury rates based on observed wearing patterns also showed no significant differences. Incidence rate ratios for standard Headgear wearers referenced to nonwearers were 1.11 and 1.10 for game and missed game injuries. Conclusions: Padded Headgear does not reduce the rate of head injury or concussion. The low compliance rates are a limitation. Although individuals may choose to wear padded Headgear, the routine or mandatory use of protective
-
A pilot study of the attitudes of Australian Rules footballers towards protective Headgear.
Journal of science and medicine in sport, 2003Co-Authors: Caroline F. Finch, Andrew S. Mcintosh, Paul Mccrory, Tsharni Rhiannon ZazrynAbstract:Despite a relatively high risk of injury to participants of Australian Rules football, very few players report wearing protective equipment. The aim of this paper is to describe the results of a pilot survey of the attitudes of community-level Australian Rules football players towards protective Headgear and the risk of head injury. Seventy players from four purposefully chosen clubs in metropolitan Melbourne completed a self-report questionnaire at the end of the 2000-playing season. Almost all players (91.4%) reported they did not wear protective Headgear during the 2000 season. Non-Headgear users said that Headgear was too uncomfortable (47.4%) and they didn't like it (42.1%). However, 80.0% of non-users said they would wear it if it prevented injury. The major motivation for wearing Headgear was to prevent injury. Players considered rugby, boxing and driving a car, to be associated with a higher-risk of head injury than Australian Rules football. As a group, the players perceived the risk of head injury in Australian Rules football to be low to moderate when compared to other sports and activities. This partially explains why so few players wore protective Headgear. Repeat surveys on a larger sample should be conducted to further understand the attitudes towards protective Headgear and perceptions of risk in community-level Australian football players.
-
Effectiveness of Headgear in a pilot study of under 15 rugby union football
British journal of sports medicine, 2001Co-Authors: Andrew S. Mcintosh, Paul MccroryAbstract:Objective—To determine whether protective Headgear reduced the incidence of concussion in a pilot study of under 15 rugby union. Methods—Sixteen under 15 rugby union teams were recruited from three interschool competitions in metropolitan Sydney and the adjacent country region. A prospective study was undertaken over a single competitive season. The study had two arms: a Headgear arm and a control arm. Headgear wearing rates and injury data were reported to the investigators and verified using spot checks. Results—A total of 294 players participated in the study. There were 1179 player exposures with Headgear and 357 without Headgear. In the study time frame, there were nine incidences of concussion; seven of the players involved wore Headgear and two did not. There was no significant difference between concussion rates between the two study arms. Conclusions—Although there is some controversy about the desirability of wearing protective Headgear in football, this pilot study strongly suggests that current Headgear does not provide significant protection against concussion in rugby union at a junior level. Key Words: rugby union; Headgear; helmets; concussion; adolescents
-
effectiveness of Headgear in a pilot study of under 15 rugby union football
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2001Co-Authors: Andrew S. Mcintosh, Paul MccroryAbstract:Objective —To determine whether protective Headgear reduced the incidence of concussion in a pilot study of under 15 rugby union. Methods —Sixteen under 15 rugby union teams were recruited from three interschool competitions in metropolitan Sydney and the adjacent country region. A prospective study was undertaken over a single competitive season. The study had two arms: a Headgear arm and a control arm. Headgear wearing rates and injury data were reported to the investigators and verified using spot checks. Results —A total of 294 players participated in the study. There were 1179 player exposures with Headgear and 357 without Headgear. In the study time frame, there were nine incidences of concussion; seven of the players involved wore Headgear and two did not. There was no significant difference between concussion rates between the two study arms. Conclusions —Although there is some controversy about the desirability of wearing protective Headgear in football, this pilot study strongly suggests that current Headgear does not provide significant protection against concussion in rugby union at a junior level.
-
what do under 15 year old schoolboy rugby union players think about protective Headgear
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2001Co-Authors: Caroline F. Finch, Andrew S. Mcintosh, Paul MccroryAbstract:Objectives—When protective Headgear is designed, the attitudes of the intended users needs to be taken into account, as well as safety performance criteria. The aim of this study was therefore to determine the attitudes of schoolboy rugby union players towards protective Headgear. Methods—A survey of 140 rugby union players (82.4% response rate) from 10 randomly selected school teams in metropolitan Sydney was conducted at the end of the 1999 playing season. All players were aged 14‐16 years. All teams had participated in a trial of Headgear during the 1999 season in which six of the teams had been assigned to a Headgear trial arm and four teams to a control arm. Players completed a self report questionnaire during a supervised session at school. The questionnaire collected information on recent head injuries, use of protective equipment, and attitudes towards Headgear. Results—Some form of protective equipment was always worn by 76.1% of players: 93.6% reported using a mouthguard and 79.3% a helmet/Headgear during the 1999 season. The two most important reasons for wearing Headgear were related to safety concerns. Players with no recent head/neck injury were more likely to report that they felt safer when wearing Headgear (p<0.001) and less likely to cite a previous injury as a motivating factor for wearing Headgear (p<0.001) than those who had sustained a recent head/neck injury. Of the players who wore Headgear during the 1999 season, 67% said that they played more confidently when they wore Headgear, but 63% said that their head was hotter. Few players reported that their head was uncomfortable (15%) or that it was hard to communicate (3%) when they wore Headgear. The main reasons for not wearing Headgear were related to its design features: uncomfortable (61%) and it was hot (57%). Conclusions—The primary reason cited by players for wearing Headgear is safety. Receiving an injury would also motivate non-wearers to wear Headgear. Players report that they are more confident and able to tackle harder if they wear Headgear, suggesting that a belief in its protective capabilities may influence behaviour. These attitudes need to be addressed in the design of eVective Headgear as well as in strategies to promote its use. (Br J Sports Med 2001;35:89‐94)
Andrew S. Mcintosh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Does padded Headgear prevent head injury in rugby union football
Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 2009Co-Authors: Andrew S. Mcintosh, Caroline F. Finch, Paul Mccrory, John P. Best, David J. Chalmers, Rory WolfeAbstract:MCINTOSH, A. S., P. MCCRORY, C. F. FINCH,-J. P. BEST, D. J. CHALMERS, and R. WOLFE. Does Padded Headgear Prevent Head Injury in Rugby Union Football? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 306-313. 2009. Background: Concussion is a serious problem in many contact sports, including rugby union football. The study's primary aim was to measure the efficacy of padded Headgear in reducing the rates of head injury or concussion. Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial with three arms was conducted with rugby union football teams as the unit of randomization. Teams consisted of males participating in under 13-, 15-, 18-, and 20-yr age group competitions. The interventions were "standard" and "modified" padded Headgear. Headgear wearing and injury were measured for each study team at each game over two seasons. Results: Eighty-two teams participated in year I and 87 in year 2. A total of 1493 participants (10,040 player hours) were in the control group, 1128 participants (8170 player hours) were assigned to the standard Headgear group, and 1474 participants,(10,650 player hours) were assigned to the modified Headgear group. The compliance rates were low in all groups, but 46% of participants wore standard Headgear. An intention-to-treat analysis showed no differences in the rates of head injury or concussion between controls and Headgear arms. Incidence rate ratios for standard Headgear wearers referenced to controls were 0.95 and 1.02 for game and missed game injuries. Analyses of injury rates based on observed wearing patterns also showed no significant differences. Incidence rate ratios for standard Headgear wearers referenced to nonwearers were 1.11 and 1.10 for game and missed game injuries. Conclusions: Padded Headgear does not reduce the rate of head injury or concussion. The low compliance rates are a limitation. Although individuals may choose to wear padded Headgear, the routine or mandatory use of protective
-
A pilot study of the attitudes of Australian Rules footballers towards protective Headgear.
Journal of science and medicine in sport, 2003Co-Authors: Caroline F. Finch, Andrew S. Mcintosh, Paul Mccrory, Tsharni Rhiannon ZazrynAbstract:Despite a relatively high risk of injury to participants of Australian Rules football, very few players report wearing protective equipment. The aim of this paper is to describe the results of a pilot survey of the attitudes of community-level Australian Rules football players towards protective Headgear and the risk of head injury. Seventy players from four purposefully chosen clubs in metropolitan Melbourne completed a self-report questionnaire at the end of the 2000-playing season. Almost all players (91.4%) reported they did not wear protective Headgear during the 2000 season. Non-Headgear users said that Headgear was too uncomfortable (47.4%) and they didn't like it (42.1%). However, 80.0% of non-users said they would wear it if it prevented injury. The major motivation for wearing Headgear was to prevent injury. Players considered rugby, boxing and driving a car, to be associated with a higher-risk of head injury than Australian Rules football. As a group, the players perceived the risk of head injury in Australian Rules football to be low to moderate when compared to other sports and activities. This partially explains why so few players wore protective Headgear. Repeat surveys on a larger sample should be conducted to further understand the attitudes towards protective Headgear and perceptions of risk in community-level Australian football players.
-
Effectiveness of Headgear in a pilot study of under 15 rugby union football
British journal of sports medicine, 2001Co-Authors: Andrew S. Mcintosh, Paul MccroryAbstract:Objective—To determine whether protective Headgear reduced the incidence of concussion in a pilot study of under 15 rugby union. Methods—Sixteen under 15 rugby union teams were recruited from three interschool competitions in metropolitan Sydney and the adjacent country region. A prospective study was undertaken over a single competitive season. The study had two arms: a Headgear arm and a control arm. Headgear wearing rates and injury data were reported to the investigators and verified using spot checks. Results—A total of 294 players participated in the study. There were 1179 player exposures with Headgear and 357 without Headgear. In the study time frame, there were nine incidences of concussion; seven of the players involved wore Headgear and two did not. There was no significant difference between concussion rates between the two study arms. Conclusions—Although there is some controversy about the desirability of wearing protective Headgear in football, this pilot study strongly suggests that current Headgear does not provide significant protection against concussion in rugby union at a junior level. Key Words: rugby union; Headgear; helmets; concussion; adolescents
-
effectiveness of Headgear in a pilot study of under 15 rugby union football
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2001Co-Authors: Andrew S. Mcintosh, Paul MccroryAbstract:Objective —To determine whether protective Headgear reduced the incidence of concussion in a pilot study of under 15 rugby union. Methods —Sixteen under 15 rugby union teams were recruited from three interschool competitions in metropolitan Sydney and the adjacent country region. A prospective study was undertaken over a single competitive season. The study had two arms: a Headgear arm and a control arm. Headgear wearing rates and injury data were reported to the investigators and verified using spot checks. Results —A total of 294 players participated in the study. There were 1179 player exposures with Headgear and 357 without Headgear. In the study time frame, there were nine incidences of concussion; seven of the players involved wore Headgear and two did not. There was no significant difference between concussion rates between the two study arms. Conclusions —Although there is some controversy about the desirability of wearing protective Headgear in football, this pilot study strongly suggests that current Headgear does not provide significant protection against concussion in rugby union at a junior level.
-
what do under 15 year old schoolboy rugby union players think about protective Headgear
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2001Co-Authors: Caroline F. Finch, Andrew S. Mcintosh, Paul MccroryAbstract:Objectives—When protective Headgear is designed, the attitudes of the intended users needs to be taken into account, as well as safety performance criteria. The aim of this study was therefore to determine the attitudes of schoolboy rugby union players towards protective Headgear. Methods—A survey of 140 rugby union players (82.4% response rate) from 10 randomly selected school teams in metropolitan Sydney was conducted at the end of the 1999 playing season. All players were aged 14‐16 years. All teams had participated in a trial of Headgear during the 1999 season in which six of the teams had been assigned to a Headgear trial arm and four teams to a control arm. Players completed a self report questionnaire during a supervised session at school. The questionnaire collected information on recent head injuries, use of protective equipment, and attitudes towards Headgear. Results—Some form of protective equipment was always worn by 76.1% of players: 93.6% reported using a mouthguard and 79.3% a helmet/Headgear during the 1999 season. The two most important reasons for wearing Headgear were related to safety concerns. Players with no recent head/neck injury were more likely to report that they felt safer when wearing Headgear (p<0.001) and less likely to cite a previous injury as a motivating factor for wearing Headgear (p<0.001) than those who had sustained a recent head/neck injury. Of the players who wore Headgear during the 1999 season, 67% said that they played more confidently when they wore Headgear, but 63% said that their head was hotter. Few players reported that their head was uncomfortable (15%) or that it was hard to communicate (3%) when they wore Headgear. The main reasons for not wearing Headgear were related to its design features: uncomfortable (61%) and it was hot (57%). Conclusions—The primary reason cited by players for wearing Headgear is safety. Receiving an injury would also motivate non-wearers to wear Headgear. Players report that they are more confident and able to tackle harder if they wear Headgear, suggesting that a belief in its protective capabilities may influence behaviour. These attitudes need to be addressed in the design of eVective Headgear as well as in strategies to promote its use. (Br J Sports Med 2001;35:89‐94)
Gregory J King - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effect of early treatment on stability of occlusion in patients with class ii malocclusion
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2008Co-Authors: Sarah S Pavlow, Calogero Dolce, Susan P McGorray, Gregory J King, Marie G Taylo, Timothy T WheeleAbstract:Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of early treatment on the stability of occlusion in patients with Class II malocclusions. The peer assessment rating (PAR) index was used to evaluate changes in occlusion after treatment of subjects treated in 1 phase or 2 phases. This study was a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Methods: Dental casts were obtained from the participants, who were randomized into 3 phase-1 early treatment groups: bionator, Headgear/bite plane, or observation. Phase 2 consisted of continued treatment of the bionator and the Headgear/biteplane subjects and comprehensive treatment of the observation subjects. PAR scores were obtained for 208 subjects at end of treatment; 173 (83%) had at least 1 follow-up visit, with a median follow-up time of 5.0 years. PAR scores were calculated for each subject at key treatment and posttreatment time points. Linear mixed-effect models were used to evaluate the impact of phase-1 treatment group, years posttreatment, end of treatment PAR score, and other covariates that could affect stability on the posttreatment PAR score. Results: Factors significantly affecting posttreatment PAR scores were PAR score at end of treatment ( P P =.0064), and PAR score at the start of phase 2. Although phase-1 treatment was not statistically significant, those with early treatment had lower PAR scores at the start of phase 2 than the observation subjects (means [SD]: bionator 17.5 [7.4], Headgear/biteplane 15.3 [7.0], observation 22.2 [8.6], P Conclusions: Factors that affect posttreatment PAR score stability include PAR score at the end of treatment, years posttreatment, and PAR score at the start of phase-2 treatment. The early treatment modalities have limited positive impact on posttreatment stability PAR scores in Class II malocclusion patients due to their effect on PAR scores at the start of phase-2 treatment.
-
effectiveness of early treatment of class ii malocclusion
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2002Co-Authors: Timothy T Wheele, Calogero Dolce, Susan P McGorray, Marie G Taylo, Gregory J KingAbstract:The purpose of this study was to examine and report the effectiveness of early treatment with the Headgear/biteplate and the bionator in patients with Class II malocclusion regardless of the mechanism of correction and to compare early-treatment results with changes over a similar time period in an observation group. The role of factors such as compliance was examined to determine their contribution to effective treatment. The experimental design was a prospective, longitudinal, randomized controlled trial. At the end of the early-treatment period, all 3 groups differed significantly (overall, P = .001) in percentage of treatment goal achieved, with median values of 83% for the bionator group, 100% for the Headgear group, and 14% for the observation group. In both treated and observation subjects, the percentages of goal achieved varied by initial molar class severity (treated, P =.0205; observation, P = .0040) and race (treated, P = .0314; observation, P = .0416). Significant correlations in the treated subjects were identified between percentage of goal achieved and bone age (13 bones) (r = 0.16; P = .037), bone age (20 bones) (r = 0.16; P = .043), compliance (r = 0.26; P = .0005), and initial overjet (r = -0.26; P = .0095). Significant correlations were not detected in the observation group. Sex, treatment group, age, mandibular plane angle, pretreatment, and retention did not significantly affect percentage of goal achieved among the treated and the observation subjects. Correlation between normalized compliance scores and percentage of goal achieved was high for both bionator (r = 0.50) and Headgear subjects (r = 0.49) at the end of treatment. Multivariate analysis suggested that Headgear may be superior to bionator/biteplane in achieving a Class II correction during early treatment.
-
a 3 dimensional analysis of molar movement during Headgear treatment
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2002Co-Authors: Jennifer L Ashmore, Gregory J King, Brenda F Kurland, Timothy T Wheeler, Joseph Ghafari, Douglas S RamsayAbstract:Abstract Superimposition of serial cephalograms provides a limited description of tooth movement that could be complemented by data obtained from serial dental casts. The aim of this study was to develop a mathematical method for superimposing 3-dimensional data obtained from selected landmarks on longitudinally collected dental casts to describe maxillary first molar movement during Headgear treatment. The material consisted of dental casts taken bimonthly from 36 children whose Class II Division 1 malocclusion was treated with straight-pull Headgear during a 24-month period. Control data were collected from initial and final models of 38 subjects with a similar malocclusion who were not treated during a 24-month observation period. Spatial data from each subject's initial model were oriented similarly in an anatomically derived coordinate system, and a best-fit superimposition of palatal rugae landmarks from subsequent models allowed the measurement of molar movement. On average, Headgear treatment resulted in distal movement of the molars, and the fitted net difference between treated and control subjects was 3.00 mm (SE, 0.37 mm; P P P
-
a 3 dimensional analysis of molar movement during Headgear treatment
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2002Co-Authors: Jennifer L Ashmore, Gregory J King, Brenda F Kurland, Timothy T Wheeler, Joseph Ghafari, Douglas S RamsayAbstract:Superimposition of serial cephalograms provides a limited description of tooth movement that could be complemented by data obtained from serial dental casts. The aim of this study was to develop a mathematical method for superimposing 3-dimensional data obtained from selected landmarks on longitudinally collected dental casts to describe maxillary first molar movement during Headgear treatment. The material consisted of dental casts taken bimonthly from 36 children whose Class II Division 1 malocclusion was treated with straight-pull Headgear during a 24-month period. Control data were collected from initial and final models of 38 subjects with a similar malocclusion who were not treated during a 24-month observation period. Spatial data from each subject's initial model were oriented similarly in an anatomically derived coordinate system, and a best-fit superimposition of palatal rugae landmarks from subsequent models allowed the measurement of molar movement. On average, Headgear treatment resulted in distal movement of the molars, and the fitted net difference between treated and control subjects was 3.00 mm (SE, 0.37 mm; P < .001). Also, the Headgear caused significantly more molar extrusion (0.56 mm; SE, 0.20 mm; P < .006) and buccal expansion (0.58 mm; SE, 0.17 mm; P < .001) on average than in the control group. Poor reliability of the method for measuring molar rotations indicated that they could not be determined accurately. Longitudinal description of molar movement for each subject revealed great individual variability in the amount and pattern of tooth movement. Several reasons could account for the wide range of individual variation and warrant exploration.
-
anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early class ii treatment with bionators and Headgear
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1998Co-Authors: Stephen D Keeling, Susan P McGorray, Gregory J King, Timothy T Wheeler, Cynthia Garvan, David A Cohen, Salvatore Cabassa, Marie G TaylorAbstract:Abstract In this study we examined anteroposterior cephalometric changes in children enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of early treatment for Class II malocclusion. Children, aged 9.6 ± 0.8 years at the start of study, were randomly assigned to control (n = 81), bionator (n = 78), and Headgear/biteplane (n = 90) treatments. Cephalograms were obtained initially, after Class I molars were obtained or 2 years had elapsed, after an additional 6 months during which treated subjects were randomized to retention or no retention and after a final 6 months without appliances. Calibrated examiners, blinded to group, used Johnston's analysis to measure anteroposterior cephalometric changes. Statistical analysis was used to determine annual skeletal and dental changes during treatment, retention, and follow-up, and overall. Our data reveal that both bionator and head-gear treatments corrected Class II molar relationships, reduced overjets and apical base discrepancies, and caused posterior maxillary tooth movement. The skeletal changes, largely attributable to enhanced mandibular growth in both Headgear and bionator subjects, were stable a year after the end of treatment, but dental movements relapsed.(Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:50)
Rory Wolfe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Does padded Headgear prevent head injury in rugby union football
Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 2009Co-Authors: Andrew S. Mcintosh, Caroline F. Finch, Paul Mccrory, John P. Best, David J. Chalmers, Rory WolfeAbstract:MCINTOSH, A. S., P. MCCRORY, C. F. FINCH,-J. P. BEST, D. J. CHALMERS, and R. WOLFE. Does Padded Headgear Prevent Head Injury in Rugby Union Football? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 306-313. 2009. Background: Concussion is a serious problem in many contact sports, including rugby union football. The study's primary aim was to measure the efficacy of padded Headgear in reducing the rates of head injury or concussion. Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial with three arms was conducted with rugby union football teams as the unit of randomization. Teams consisted of males participating in under 13-, 15-, 18-, and 20-yr age group competitions. The interventions were "standard" and "modified" padded Headgear. Headgear wearing and injury were measured for each study team at each game over two seasons. Results: Eighty-two teams participated in year I and 87 in year 2. A total of 1493 participants (10,040 player hours) were in the control group, 1128 participants (8170 player hours) were assigned to the standard Headgear group, and 1474 participants,(10,650 player hours) were assigned to the modified Headgear group. The compliance rates were low in all groups, but 46% of participants wore standard Headgear. An intention-to-treat analysis showed no differences in the rates of head injury or concussion between controls and Headgear arms. Incidence rate ratios for standard Headgear wearers referenced to controls were 0.95 and 1.02 for game and missed game injuries. Analyses of injury rates based on observed wearing patterns also showed no significant differences. Incidence rate ratios for standard Headgear wearers referenced to nonwearers were 1.11 and 1.10 for game and missed game injuries. Conclusions: Padded Headgear does not reduce the rate of head injury or concussion. The low compliance rates are a limitation. Although individuals may choose to wear padded Headgear, the routine or mandatory use of protective
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, Antonino Lo Giudice, Vanessa Longo, Alberto Caprioglio, Angela Militi, Rosamaria Fastuca, 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.
