The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지

Effects of activator treatment on different skeletal patterns in growing class II malocclusion patients

성장기 II급 부정교합자에서 골격 형태에 따른 액티베이터 사용 효과에 관한 연구

  • Ki, Jun-Hun (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Lee, Jin-Woo (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 김준헌 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학교실) ;
  • 이진우 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학교실)
  • Published : 2007.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To establish proper diagnosis and treatment plan for skeletal Class II malocclusions, some important factors to consider are the patient's skeletal morphology, prognosis as well as the treatment effects. Therefore, the present study analyzed the effects of activator treatment on different skeletal patterns in growing Class II malocclusion patients. Methods: A total of 116 patients (53 boys & 63 girls) in the experimental group were treated with the activator appliance. The experimental group was classified into either hyperdivergent or hypodivergent groups according to articular and genial angles. Results: Patients with hypodivergent growth patterns showed good effects of activator treatment. Conclusion: It seems conceivable that through classifying adolescent Class II malocclusion patients into different skeletal patterns, activator treatment effects may be predicted during the diagnosis and treatment planning stage.

본 연구는 성장기 II급 부정교합자를 골격 형태에 따라 분류하여 액티베이터 사용 효과를 비교, 분석하고 그 결과를 진단, 치료 계획 수립 등 임상 과정에 연계시키기 위해 시행되었다. 실험은 수완부 방사선 사진상 Fishman 분류의 2, 3, 4 단계로 최대성장기 이전의 II급 부정교합자를 대상으로 하였다. 대조군은 ANB 3도 이상이며 악정형 장치 치료를 받지 않고 치열교정 치료만 받은 환자로 총 25명(남자 15명, 여자 10명)이고 실험군은 액티베이터 치료를 받은 환자로 총 116명(남자 53명, 여자 63명)이었다. Articular angle과 gonial angle을 이용하여 골격 형태를 hyperdivergent type과 hypodivergent type으로 분류하여 액티베이터 치료효과를 비교한 결과 hypodivergent한 골격 형태를 가진 환자에서 더 큰 효과를 보였다. 따라서 성장기 II급 부정교합자의 진단과 치료계획 수립 시 안모의 골격 형태 분류를 통해 액티베이터의 효과를 예측할 수 있다고 생각한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Craig CE. The skeletal patterns characteristic of Class I and Class II, Division I malocclusion in normal lateralis. Angle Orthod 1951;21:44-5
  2. Bishara SE. Mandibular changes in persons with untreated and treated Class II division I malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:661-73 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70227-6
  3. You ZH, Fishman LS, Rosenblum RE, Subtelny JD. Dentoalveolar changes related to mandibular forward growth in untreated Class II persons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:598-607 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.119801
  4. Rothstein T, Phan XI,. Dental and facial skeletal characteristics and growth of females and males with Class II Division I malocclusion between the ages of 10 and 14(revisited). Part II. Anteroposterior and vertical circumpubertal growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:542-55 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.118628
  5. Bjork A. Facial growth in man, studied with the aid of metallic implants. Acta Odontol Scand 1955;13:9-34 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016355509028170
  6. Perillo L, Johnston LE Jr, Ferro A. Permanence of skeletal changes after function regulator (FR-2) treatment of patients with retrusive Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:132-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70173-7
  7. Birkebaek L, Melsen B, Terp S. A laminagraphic study of the alterations of the temporo-mandibular joint following activator treatment. Eur J Orthod 1984;6:257-66 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/6.4.257
  8. Pancherz H. A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contributing to Class II correction in activator treatment. Am J Orthod 1984;85: 125-34 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90004-6
  9. Gianelly AA, Arena SA, Bemstein L. A comparison of Class II treatment changes noted with the light wire, edgewise, and Frankel appliances. Am J Orthod 1984;86:269-76 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90137-4
  10. Schudy FF. Vertical growth versus anteroposterior growth as related to function and treatment. Angle Orthod 1964;34:75-93
  11. Isaacson JR, Isaacson RJ, Speidel TM, Worms FW. Extreme variation in vertical facial growth and associated variation in skeletal and dental relations. Angle Orthod 1971;41:219-29
  12. Nahoum HI. Vertical proportions and the palatal plane in anterior open-bite. Am J Orthod 1971;59:273-82 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90100-X
  13. Opdeheeck H, Bell WH. The short face syndrome. Am J Orthod 1978;73:499-511 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90240-3
  14. Lee Chung XR, Park YG. A Roentgenocephalometric study of craniofacial characteristics of the skeletal class III malocclusions classified by mandibular plane (SN-MP) angle. Korean J Orthod 1992;22:205-227
  15. You ZH, Fishman LS, Rosenblum RE, Subtelny JD. Dentoalveolar changes related to mandibular forward growth in untreated Class II persons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:598-607 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.119801
  16. Buschang PH, Tanguay R, Turkewicz J, Demirjian A, La Palme L. A polynomial approach to craniofacial growth. description and comparison of adolescent males with normal occlusion and those with untreated Class II malscclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1986;90:437-42 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(86)90009-0
  17. McNamara JA Jr, Bryan FA. Long-term mandibular adaptations to protrusive function: an experimental study in Macaca mulatta. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:98-10 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(87)90364-7
  18. Forsherg CM, Odenrick L. Skeletal and soft tissue response to activator treatment. Eur J Orthod 1981;3:247-53 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/3.4.247
  19. Vargervik K. Harvold EP. Response to activator treatment in Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1985;88:242-51 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(85)90219-2
  20. Eirew HI,, McDowell F, Phillips JG. The Frankel applianceavoidance of lower incisor proclination. Int J Orthod 1986;24:3-4
  21. Righellis EG. Treatment effects of Frankel, activator and extraoral traction appliances. Angle Orthod 1983;53:107-21