A Study on the Skeletal and Profile Change after Using the Activator in Class II Malocclusion

II급 부정 교합자의 Activator 치료 후 골격 및 안모 변화에 관한 연구

  • Moon, Eun-Young (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Lee, Jin-Woo (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 문은영 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과교정학교실) ;
  • 이진우 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과교정학교실)
  • Published : 2008.06.30

Abstract

To establish the diagnosis and treatment plan for skeletal Class II malocclusion, patient's skeletal morphology, prognosis as well as the treatment effect is one of the important factor to consider. Therefore, the present study classified analyzed the difference between initial(T1) and after use of activator(T2), and after finish of direct multi-bonding system treatment(T3) for Class II malocclusion during growth period according to the treatment result(effective body length) and morphology of vertical skeletal type. The experimental group was classified into two groups(1 group, 2 group) according to the effective body length change between before and after use of activator, showed good treatment effect of activator for patient with small mandible and large differential between maxilla and mandible, and short anterior facial height. And the difference between 1 and 2 group in the experimental group before treatment(T1) disappeared in the finished treatment(T3). But in contrast, the initial difference of T1 stage between a and b group in the control group did not disappear in the finished treatment(T3). In short, experimental group's treatment effect was much better than contrast group and the treatment effect was maintained and got stable results at comparison experimental group with contrast group. Through this study, we can find activator's treatment effect and stable retention of that in growing Class II malocclusion patients. By estimate of activator treatment effect through these results, we can establish the correct diagnosis and treatment plan for adolescent Class II malocclusion estimate of activator treatment effect and lead the ideal facial growth pattern.

성장기 골격성 II급 부정 교합의 진단 및 치료 계획 수립 시, 환자의 골격 형태와 예후 및 치료효과 등을 고려하는 것은 매우 중요한 과정이라 할 수 있다. 이에 본 연구는 성장기 II급 부정교합자의 치료 과정 중 Activator를 이용한 실험군 89명과 사용하지 않은 대조군 21명을 선정하여 교정 치료 전(T1), Activator 치료 후(T2), 교정 치료 종료(T3) 시의 골격적 차이를 치료 결과(effective body length 변화)에 따라 2군(1, 2군)으로 분류하여 비교, 분석하고 그 결과를 진단, 치료 계획 수립 등 임상 과정에 연계시키기 위해 시행되었다. 실험군의 경우에는 Activator의 치료효과 중 effective body length(Ar-Me)의 변화량에 따라 분류하고 대조군은 치료전 effective body length에 따라 분류하여 통계처리 하였다. 그 결과 실험군에서는 하악체 길이가 짧고, 상 하악골 간의 격차가 크며 전안면 고경의 길이가 짧은 환자에서 Activator에 의한 치료효과가 크게 나타났으며 이러한 치료 전(T1) 시기의 차이는 실험군에서는 고정성 교정 장치 치료 후(T3)시기로 가며 성장에 의해 사라졌다. 그러나 대조군에서는 치료 전(T1) 시기의 짧은 하악체 길이와 전안면 고경이 고정성 교정 장치 치료 후(T3) 까지 유지 되었다. 전체적인 Activator치료와 유지 기간이 포함된 치료 전(T1), 고정성 교정 장치 치료 후(T3) 간 변화량에 있어서는 Activator를 사용한 군에 있어서 보다 양호한 하악 성장 양상이 나타났다. 즉 Activator에 의한 치료효과는 골격형태에 따라 다르게 나타나며 이 결과는 치료 후까지 유지 되며 보다 안정적인 치료결과를 가져 오는 것으로 사료된다. 이번 연구를 통해 성장기 II급 부정교합자에서 Activator에 의한 치료효과와 그 효과의 안정적인 유지를 확인할 수 있었고 이를 바탕으로 교정치료 시 Activator의 효과를 예측하여 바람직한 안모성장을 유도할 수 있다고 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Kingsley NW. Treatise on oral deformitietes as a branch of mechanical surgery. New York, 1880, Appleton &Lange
  2. Andresen V. Beitrag zur retention. Z Zahnaaertzl Orthop 1910;3:121
  3. Andresen V, Haupl K. Funktionskieferothopadie: die grundlagen des "norwegischen systems". 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1939, H. Meusser
  4. Bishara SE. Mandibular changes in persons with untreated and treated Class II division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113(6):661-673 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70227-6
  5. McNamara JA Jr, Bryan FA. Long-term mandibular adaptation to protrusive function: an experimental study in Macaca mulatta. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92(2):98-108 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(87)90364-7
  6. Perillo L, Johnston LE Jr, FerroA. Permanance of skeletal changes after function regulator(FR-2) treatment of patients with retrusive Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 109(2):132-139 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70173-7
  7. Bjork A. Facial growth in man, studied with the aid of metallicimplants. Acta Odontol Scand 1955; 13(1) :9-34 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016355509028170
  8. Buschang PH, Tanguay R, 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 -442 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(86)90009-0
  9. Vargervik K, Harvold EP. Response to activator treatment inClass II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1985;88(3):242-251 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(85)90219-2
  10. Wiliams R. Proffit : Out comes in a 2-phase randomized clinicaltrial of early class II treatment. Am J Orthod 2004;125:657-667 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.008
  11. Craig CE. The skeletal patterns characteristic of Class I and Class II, division I malocclusion in normal lateralis. Angle Orthod 1951;21(1):44-56
  12. 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(6):598-607 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.119801
  13. Rothstein T, Phan XL. Dental and facial skeletal characterics andgrowth of females and males with Class II Division 1 malocclusion between the ages of 10 and 14(revisited). Part II. Anteroposterior and vertical circumpubertal growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120(5):542-555 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.118628
  14. Riesmeijer, Prahl Andersen. A comparison of craniofacial Class I and Class II growth patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:463-471 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.05.012
  15. McNamara JA, Jr. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod 1981;51:177-202
  16. Pfeiffer JP, Groberty D.A. philosophy of combined orthopedic-orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1982;81(3):185-201 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90052-5
  17. Perillo L, Johnston LE Jr, FerroA. Permanance of skeletal changes after function regulator(FR-2) treatment of patients with retrusiveClass II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109(2):132-139 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70173-7
  18. Bierbaek L, Melsen B, Terp S: A laminagraphic study of the alterations of the temporomandibular joint following activatortreatment. Eur J Orthod 1984;6:157
  19. Pancherz H. Acephalometric analysis of skeletal and dentalchanges contributing to Class II correction in activator treatment. Am J Orthod 1984;85(2):125-134 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90004-6
  20. Gianelly AA, Arena SA, Bernstein L. A comparison of Class II treatment changes noted with the light wire, edgewise, andFrankel appliance. Am J Orthod 1984;86(4):269-276 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90137-4
  21. King GJ, McGorrary SP, Wheeler TT, Dolce C, Taylor M. Comparison of peer assessment rating(P AR) from I-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols for Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:489-496 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00045-3
  22. Forsberg CM, Odenrick L. Skeletal and soft tissue response toactivator treatment. Eur J Orthod 1981;3(4):247-253 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/3.4.247