The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Early treatment of anterior open bite: Comparison of the vertical and horizontal morphological changes induced by magnetic bite-blocks and adjusted rapid molar intruders

  • Albogha, Mhd Hassan (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus University) ;
  • Takahashi, Ichiro (Section of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Dental Science, Kyushu University) ;
  • Sawan, Mhd Naser (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus University)
  • Received : 2014.04.07
  • Accepted : 2014.06.18
  • Published : 2015.01.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This prospective clinical study aims to determine the differences between two treatment modalities for anterior open bite in growing patients. The treatment modalities involved the use of magnetic bite-blocks (MBBs) or rapid molar intruders (RMIs) applied with posterior bite-blocks. Methods: Fifteen consecutive patients with a mean age of 11.2 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.6) years and a mean open bite of -3.9 mm were treated with MBBs. Another 15 consecutive patients with a mean age of 10.9 (SD = 1.8) years and a mean open bite of -3.8 mm were treated with RMIs applied on bite-blocks. Cephalometric radiographs were obtained before (T1) and immediately after appliance removal (T2). The treatments lasted four months, during which the appliances were cemented to the teeth. The morphological changes were measured in each group and compared using logistic regression analysis. Results: The MBB group exhibited significantly greater decreases in SNA angle, ANB angle, overjet, and maxillary incisor angle (p < 0.05). The MBBs induced greater effects on the maxilla and maxillary dentition. The MBBs restrained maxillary forward growth and retracted the maxillary incisors more effectively than did the RMIs. Consequently, changes in the intermaxillary relationships and overjets were more distinct in the MBB group. Conclusions: The anteroposterior differences between the appliances suggest that MBBs should be preferred for the treatment of patients with Class II open bites and maxillary incisor protrusions.

Keywords

References

  1. Cangialosi TJ. Skeletal morphologic features of anterior open bite. Am J Orthod 1984;85:28-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90120-9
  2. Sankey WL, Buschang PH, English J, Owen AH 3rd. Early treatment of vertical skeletal dysplasia: the hyperdivergent phenotype. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:317-27. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.106068
  3. English JD. Early treatment of skeletal open bite malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:563-5. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.124166
  4. Iscan HN, Sarisoy L. Comparison of the effects of passive posterior bite-blocks with different construction bites on the craniofacial and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112:171-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70243-9
  5. Iscan HN, Akkaya S, Koralp E. The effects of the spring-loaded posterior bite-block on the maxillofacial morphology. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:54-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.1.54
  6. Gurton AU, Akin E, Karacay S. Initial intrusion of the molars in the treatment of anterior open bite malocclusions in growing patients. Angle Orthod 2004;74:454-64.
  7. Dellinger EL, Dellinger EL. Active vertical corrector treatment--long-term follow-up of anterior open bite treated by the intrusion of posterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:145-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70102-6
  8. Dellinger EL. A clinical assessment of the Active Vertical Corrector--a nonsurgical alternative for skeletal open bite treatment. Am J Orthod 1986;89:428-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(86)90075-8
  9. Woods MG, Nanda RS. Intrusion of posterior teeth with magnets. An experiment in growing baboons. Angle Orthod 1988;58:136-50.
  10. Melsen B, McNamara JA Jr, Hoenie DC. The effect of bite-blocks with and without repelling magnets studied histomorphometrically in the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:500-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70050-1
  11. Meral O, Yuksel S. Skeletal and dental effects during observation and treatment with a magnetic device. Angle Orthod 2003;73:716-22.
  12. Kuster R, Ingervall B. The effect of treatment of skeletal open bite with two types of bite-blocks. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:489-99. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.6.489
  13. Barbre RE, Sinclair PM. A cephalometric evaluation of anterior openbite correction with the magnetic active vertical corrector. Angle Orthod 1991;61:93-102
  14. Kiliaridis S, Egermark I, Thilander B. Anterior open bite treatment with magnets. Eur J Orthod 1990;12: 447-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/12.4.447
  15. Kalra V, Burstone CJ, Nanda R. Effects of a fixed magnetic appliance on the dentofacial complex. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:467-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90410-1
  16. Carano A, Machata W, Siciliani G. Noncompliant treatment of skeletal open bite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:781-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.11.029
  17. Cinsar A, Alagha AR, Akyalcin S. Skeletal open bite correction with rapid molar intruder appliance in growing individuals. Angle Orthod 2007;77:632-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/071406-292
  18. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. London: George Alien and Unwin Ltd; 1940.
  19. McNamara JA Jr. An orthopedic approach to the treatment of Class III malocclusion in young patients. J Clin Orthod 1987;21:598-608.
  20. Buschang PH, Jacob H, Carrillo R. The morphological characteristics, growth, and etiology of the hyperdivergent phenotype. Semin Orthod 2013;19: 212-26. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2013.07.002
  21. Bourauel C, Koklu SO, Vardimon AD. Integrated magnetic and elastic force systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:155-63. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.125566

Cited by

  1. Effectiveness of the open bite treatment in growing children and adolescents. A systematic review vol.38, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv048
  2. Étiologie et traitements des béances antérieures chez les patients en croissance : une étude narrative vol.87, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1051/orthodfr/2016038
  3. Systematic review for orthodontic and orthopedic treatments for anterior open bite in the mixed dentition vol.17, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-016-0142-0
  4. Effectiveness of open bite correction when managing deleterious oral habits in growing children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis vol.39, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjw005
  5. Miniplate With a Bendable C-Tube Head Allows the Clinician to Alter Biomechanical Advantage in Extremely Complicated Anatomic Structure vol.28, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000003382
  6. Mathematical modeling for explanation and prediction of treatment outcome in growing patients with anterior open bite malocclusion treated with rapid molar intruder and posterior bite blocks vol.76, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.odw.2017.03.001
  7. Prediction of mandibular movement and its center of rotation for nonsurgical correction of anterior open bite via maxillary molar intrusion vol.88, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2319/102317-714.1
  8. Long-term evaluation of rapid maxillary expansion and bite-block therapy in open bite growing subjects: vol.88, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2319/102717-728.1