The Experts below are selected from a list of 54 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Budi Kusnoto - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
change in the vertical dimension of class ii division 1 patients after use of cervical or high pull Headgear
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2016Co-Authors: Erin Dobbins Zervas, Maria Therese S Galangboquiren, Ales Obrez, Maria Grace Costa Viana, Nelson Oppermann, Flavio Sanchez, Enrique Garcia Romero, Budi KusnotoAbstract:Introduction The goals of this study were to compare the effects that cervical and High-Pull Headgear have on the vertical dimensions in Class II Division 1 patients during phase 1 treatment and to compare these effects with untreated predicted growth for the sample population. Methods Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs of children who had undergone Class II Division 1 correction with cervical (n = 22) or High-Pull Headgear (n = 19) were analyzed for the measurements that describe the changes in the vertical component of growth and mandibular position. The groups were matched for age (mean, 9 ± 2.5 years), treatment time (mean, 14 months), malocclusion, and similar skeletal features. The groups were compared with each other and also with an untreated growth model. Results Treatment with cervical Headgear resulted in smaller increases in measurements that describe the vertical dimension than with High-Pull Headgear. Cervical Headgear showed more favorable changes in mandibular growth that were statistically significant when compared with the untreated growth models. Conclusions In this study, the cervical Headgear showed more control over the vertical dimension and produced more favorable changes in mandibular position by normalizing the occlusal plane. Compared with the untreated growth model, cervical Headgear worked synergistically with growth to produce more optimal changes in mandibular position.
Uribe-querol Eilee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Camouflage orthodontic treatment in an autistic class II patient with anterior open bite: Case report
2015Co-Authors: Linares Toledo, Silvanna María, Ruiz Díaz Roberto, Uribe-querol EileeAbstract:ABSTRACTAn orthodontic case report is presented. The patient was a 12 year old autistic male with class II, augmented overjet, vertical growth and anterior open bite. He also exhibited tongue-thrust habit. A surgical treatment was ideal for this case but because of his neurological problem, it was decided to use an alternative orthodontic treatment. The orthodontic treatment included: Hyrax, High-Pull-Headgear, double transpalatal bar with acrylic button and elastics. After a three year treatment, class I approximation was obtained, open bite was corrected and vertical growth was controlled. The patient's tonguethrust habit was controlled using a wrap-around retainer with tongue corrector. This retainer was placed on the maxillary arch and on the lower, a lingual bonded retainer was used. The camouflage orthodontic treatment was successful because good behavioral techniques for autism patients were used
-
Tratamiento ortodóncico compensatorio para un paciente autista clase II con mordida abierta anterior: Caso clínico
2015Co-Authors: Toledo, Silvanna María Linares, Díaz, Roberto Ruiz, Uribe-querol EileeAbstract:RESUMENEl presente caso clínico corresponde al tratamiento ortodóncico compensatorio de un paciente varón de 12 años con autismo. El paciente mostraba clase II, sobremordida horizontal aumentada, crecimiento vertical y mordida abierta anterior. También presentaba hábito de lengua. Un tratamiento ortodóncico-quirúrgico era ideal para este caso. Sin embargo, dada su condición neurológica se realizó un tratamiento ortodóncico compensatorio. El tratamiento incluyó diversos aparatos, entre ellos: Hyrax, arco extra oral de tracción alta, dobles barras palatinas con botón de acrílico y elásticos. Después de tres años de tratamiento, se consiguió obtener características aproximadas a clase I, cierre de la mordida abierta y control del crecimiento vertical. El hábito de lengua fue controlado mediante una retención con un arco circunferencial con trampa lingual. El tratamiento ortodóncico de camuflaje fue exitoso gracias al adecuado manejo de técnicas de la conducta para el control del paciente autista.ABSTRACTAn orthodontic case report is presented. The patient was a 12 year old autistic male with class II, augmented overjet, vertical growth and anterior open bite. He also exhibited tongue-thrust habit. A surgical treatment was ideal for this case but because of his neurological problem, it was decided to use an alternative orthodontic treatment. The orthodontic treatment included: Hyrax, High-Pull-Headgear, double transpalatal bar with acrylic button and elastics. After a three year treatment, class I approximation was obtained, open bite was corrected and vertical growth was controlled. The patient's tonguethrust habit was controlled using a wrap-around retainer with tongue corrector. This retainer was placed on the maxillary arch and on the lower, a lingual bonded retainer was used. The camouflage orthodontic treatment was successful because good behavioral techniques for autism patients were used
Nikos Haralabakis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
treatment strategies for patients with hyperdivergent class ii division 1 malocclusion is vertical dimension affected
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2011Co-Authors: Nikolaos Gkantidis, Demetrios J Halazonetis, Evanggelos Alexandropoulos, Nikos HaralabakisAbstract:Introduction The dilemma of extraction vs nonextraction treatment, along with the uncertain potential of orthodontic treatment to control vertical dimensions, still remains among the most controversial issues in orthodontics. The aim of this study was to evaluate 2 contradictory treatment protocols for hyperdivergent Class II Division 1 malocclusion regarding their effectiveness in controlling vertical dimensions. Methods The subjects were retrospectively selected from 2 orthodontic offices that used contrasting treatment protocols. The patients had similar hyperdivergent skeletal patterns, malocclusion patterns, skeletal ages, and sexes. Group A (29 patients) was treated with 4 first premolar extractions and “intrusive” mechanics (eg, High-Pull Headgear), whereas group B (28 patients) was treated nonextraction with no regard to vertical control (eg, cervical Headgear, Class II elastics). Twenty-seven landmarks were digitized on lateral cephalometric radiographs before and after treatment, and 14 measurements were assessed. Geometric morphometric methods were also implemented to evaluate size and shape differences. Results As expected, the maxillary and mandibular molars translated mesially and the mandibular incisors uprighted in group A but remained approximately unchanged in group B. The vertical positions of the molars and the incisors were similar between groups before and after treatment, although they were altered by treatment or growth. No significant differences were observed in the posttreatment skeletal measurements between the 2 groups, including vertical variables, which remained unaltered. Permutation tests on Procrustes distances between skeletal shapes confirmed these results. Conclusions This study demonstrated the limitations of conventional orthodontics to significantly alter skeletal vertical dimensions. More important factors are probably responsible for the development and establishment of the vertical skeletal pattern, such as neuromuscular balance and function.
De Siqueira V.c.v. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cephalometric Evaluation Of Effectiveness Interland Headgear On Class Ii, Division 1, Malocclusion
2015Co-Authors: De Carvalho A.z.n.b., De Siqueira V.c.v.Abstract:Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of early treatment on the maxillary dental arches in children with mixed dentition. Methods: It was evaluated 40 lateral cephalograms (20 pre and 20 posttreatment) from girls with mean age of 9.15 years, who had class II, division 1 malocclusion and received occipital Headgear treatment with 350 g of force applied bilaterally 14 hours per day, during 22.35 months. The values of: SN.GoGn, FMA, N-ANS, ANS-Me, S-Ptm, Ptm-ANS, SNA, SNB, ANB, Ptm-6, 1.NA, 1.PP were evaluated. The Dalhberg's formula revealed a casual error smaller than 1.5° and 1.0 mm, indicating reliability of the obtained data. Results: The data revealed that the growth pattern did not change with the treatment. The ANS-Me decreased. The jaw relationship changed positively, reducing the value of ANB. Anterior maxillary displacement was limited and the anteroposterior dimension increased. The maxillary molars were moved distally and incisors were retracted. Conclusions: The early treatment with occipital Headgear was effective in moving maxillary teeth distally and retracting incisors, improving the jaw relationship and favoring the second phase of the orthodontic treatment when necessary.813843da Silva Filho, O.G., de Freitas, S.F., Cavassan Ade, O., Prevalence of normal occlusion and malocclusion in Bauru (Sao Paulo) students 1. Sagittal relation (1990) Rev Odontol Univ São Paulo, 4, pp. 130-137Tulloch, J.F., Phillips, C., Proffit, W.R., Benefit of early Class II treatment progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial (1998) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 113, pp. 62-72Proffit, W.R., Tulloch, J.F.C., Preadolescent Class II problems treat no or wait? (2002) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 121, pp. 560-562Horn, A.J., Thiers-Jégou, I., Prévention et traitement aprés 10 ans dans une logique Edgewise (2006) Orthod Fr, 77, pp. 285-301Dugoni, S.A., Lee, J.S., Varela, J., Dugoni, A.A., Early mixed dentition treatment postrentetion evaluation of stability and relapse (1995) Angle Orthod, 65, pp. 311-320Dugoni, S.A., Comprehensive mixed dentition treatment (1998) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 113, pp. 75-84Ghafari, 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 (1998) Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 113, pp. 51-61Keeling, S.D., Wheeler, T.T., King, G.J., Garvan, C.W., Cohen, D.A., Cabassa, S., Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and Headgear (1998) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 113, pp. 40-50Fogle, L.L., Southard, K.A., Southard, T.E., Casko, J.S., Treatment outcomes of growing Class II Division 1 patients with varying degrees of anteroposterior and vertical dysplasias Part 1. Cephalometrics (2004) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 125, pp. 450-456Dugoni, S., Aubert, M., Baumrind, S., Differential diagnosis and treatment planning for early mixed dentition malocclusions (2006) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 129, pp. 80-81. , (Suppl)Freeman, C.S., McNamara J.A., Jr., Baccetti, T., Franchi, L., Graff, T.W., Treatment effects of the bionator and High-Pull facebow combination followed by fixed appliances in patients with increased vertical dimensions (2007) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 131, pp. 184-195Burke, M., Jacobson, A., Vertical changes in high-angle Class II, division 1 patients treated with cervical or occipital pull Headgear (1992) Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 102, pp. 501-508Baccetti, T., Franchi, L., McNamara J.A. Jr, Tollaro, I., Early dentofacial features of Class II malocclusion a longitudinal study from the deciduous through the mixed dentition (1997) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 111, pp. 502-509Klocke, A., Nanda, R.S., Kahl-Nieke, B., Skeletal Class II patterns in the primary dentition (2002) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 121, pp. 596-601Houston, W.J., The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements (1983) Am J Orthod, 83, pp. 382-390Sandler, P.J., Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements (1988) Br J Orthod, 15, pp. 105-110Kopecky, G.R., Fishman, L.S., Timing of cervical Headgear treatment based on skeletal maturation (1993) Am J Orthod Dentof Orthop, 104, pp. 162-169Greenspan, R.A., Reference charts for controlled extraoral force application to maxillary molars (1970) Am J Orthod, 58, pp. 486-491Ochoa, B.K., Nanda, R.S., Comparison of maxillary and mandibular growth (2004) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 125, pp. 148-159Firouz, M., Zernik, J., Nanda, R., Dental and orthopedic effects of High-Pull Headgear in treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusion (1992) Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 102, pp. 197-205LaHaye, M.B., Buschang, P.H., Alexander, R.G., Boley, J.C., Orthodontic treatment changes of chin position in Class II Division 1 patients (2006) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 130, pp. 732-741Baumrind, S., Korn, E.L., Isaacson, R.J., West, E.E., Molthen, R., Quantitative analysis of the orthodontic and orthopedic effects of maxillary traction (1983) Am J Orthod, 84, pp. 384-398O'Reilly, M.T., Nanda, S.K., Close, J., Cervical and oblique Headgear a comparison of treatment effects (1993) Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 103, pp. 504-509Enlow, D.H., Bang, S., Growth and remodeling of the human maxilla (1965) Am J Orthod, 51, pp. 446-464Billiet, T., de Pauw, G., Dermaut, L., Location of the centre of resistance of the upper dentition and the nasomaxillary complex An experimental study (2001) Eur J Orthod, 23, pp. 263-27
Erin Dobbins Zervas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
change in the vertical dimension of class ii division 1 patients after use of cervical or high pull Headgear
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2016Co-Authors: Erin Dobbins Zervas, Maria Therese S Galangboquiren, Ales Obrez, Maria Grace Costa Viana, Nelson Oppermann, Flavio Sanchez, Enrique Garcia Romero, Budi KusnotoAbstract:Introduction The goals of this study were to compare the effects that cervical and High-Pull Headgear have on the vertical dimensions in Class II Division 1 patients during phase 1 treatment and to compare these effects with untreated predicted growth for the sample population. Methods Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs of children who had undergone Class II Division 1 correction with cervical (n = 22) or High-Pull Headgear (n = 19) were analyzed for the measurements that describe the changes in the vertical component of growth and mandibular position. The groups were matched for age (mean, 9 ± 2.5 years), treatment time (mean, 14 months), malocclusion, and similar skeletal features. The groups were compared with each other and also with an untreated growth model. Results Treatment with cervical Headgear resulted in smaller increases in measurements that describe the vertical dimension than with High-Pull Headgear. Cervical Headgear showed more favorable changes in mandibular growth that were statistically significant when compared with the untreated growth models. Conclusions In this study, the cervical Headgear showed more control over the vertical dimension and produced more favorable changes in mandibular position by normalizing the occlusal plane. Compared with the untreated growth model, cervical Headgear worked synergistically with growth to produce more optimal changes in mandibular position.