Browse > Article

Changes in atlas position with Class ll activator treatment in Class II malocclusion patients  

Cho, Moon-Ki (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Cha, Kyung-Suk (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Chung, Dong-Hwa (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Lee, Jin-Woo (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.37, no.1, 2007 , pp. 44-55 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: Previous studies have reported that morphological features of the first cervical vertebra (atlas) have been associated with mandibular growth direction. The purpose of this study was to show the possible positional and morphological changes of the Atlas from activator treatment in Class II malocclusion patients. Methods: Lateral cephalometric radiograph tracings were made at initial, middle and final stages of treatment. Angular and linear measurements of skeletal and morphological features were measured on the anatomical landmarks and reference planes. Results: The skeletal effects of activator treatment on Class II malocclusion patients were evident on ramal height, body length, effective body length, ANB, and overjet. Clockwise rotation of the long axis of the Atlas was found in Group 1, but there was no inclination change of the Atlas in groups 2 and 3. There was no significant correlation between anterior and posterior positions of the atlas or morphological change in all groups. - except for posterior movements of the Atlas found in group 1. Conclusion: Clockwise rotation of the atlas axis resulted from activator treatment in Cl II malocclusion patients. Change in atlas axis can be thought of as an indicator for success of activator treatment.
Keywords
Atlas; Class II activator;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Baumrind S, Korn EL, West EE. Prediction of mandibular rotation: an empirical test of clinician performance. Am J Orthod 1984;86: 371-85   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Huggare J. The first cervical vertebra as an indicator of mandibular growth. Eur J Orthod 1989;11:10-6   DOI   PUBMED
3 Andresen V, Haupl K, Petrik L. Funktionskieferorthopadie: die 6, Munich, 1957 Johann Ambrosium Barth
4 Bjork A. The principle of the Andresen method of orthodontic treatment a discussion based on cephalometric X-ray analysis of treated cases. Am J Orthod 1951;37:437-58   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Cha BK, How to solve class II and III malocclusions. Seoul: Jeesung; 1997. p. 7-33
6 You ZH, Fishman LS, Rosenblum RE, Subtelny JD. Dentoalveolar changes related to mandibular fonvard growth in untreated Class II persons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:598-607   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Pfeiffer JP, Grobety D. A philosophy of combined orthopedicorthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1982;81:185-201   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Bjork A. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod 1969;55;585-99   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Moss ML. The functional matrix hypothesis revisited. 2. The role of an osseous connected cellular network. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:221-6   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Vargervik K, Hawold EP. Response toactivator treatment in Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1985;88:242-51   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Kylamarkula S, Huggare J. Head posture and the morphology of the first cervical vertebra. Eur J Orthod 1985;7: 151-6   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
12 Birkebaek L, Melsen B, Terp S. A laminagraphic study of the alterations in the temporo-mandibular joint following activator treatment. Eur J Orthod 1984;6:257-66   DOI   PUBMED
13 Jacobson A, Evans W, Preston C, Sadowsky P. Mandibular prognathism, Am J Orthod 1974;66:140-71   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Forsberg CM, Odenrick L. Skeletal and soft tissue response to activator treatment. Eur J Orthod 1981;3:247-53   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
15 Cha KS, Orthodontic Diagnosis. Seoul; International dental-medical; 1995. p. 102-3
16 Huggare J. Head posture and craniofacial morphology in adults from northern Finland. Proc Finn Dent Soc 1986;82:199-208
17 McNamara JA Jr. Components of Class I1 malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod 1981;51:177-202   PUBMED
18 Bjork A, Palling M. Adolescent age changes in sagittal jaw relation, alveolar prognathy, and incisal inclination. Acta Odontol Scand 1955;12:201-32   DOI
19 Moss ML. The functional matrix. In:Kraus B, Reidel R. editors. Vistas in orthodontics. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger. 1962;85-98
20 Balbach DR. The cephalometric relationship between the morphology of the mandible and its future occlusal position. Angle Orthod 1969;39:29-41   PUBMED
21 Bishara SE. Mandibular changes in persons with untreated and treated Class II division I malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:661-73   DOI   ScienceOn
22 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   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Moss ML. The functional matrix hypothesis revisited. 4. The epigenetic antithesis and the resolving synthesis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:410-7   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Treuenfels H. Head position, atlas position and breathing in open bite. Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1984;45:111-21   DOI
25 Moss ML. Rankow RM. The role of the functional matrix in mandibular growth. Angle Orthod 1968;38:95-103   PUBMED
26 Moss MI,. The functional matrix hypothesis revisited. 1. The role of mechanotransduction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112: 8-11   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Bjork A. Facial growth rotation-reflections on definition and cause. Proc Finn Dent Soc 1991;87:51-8
28 Moss ML. The functional matrix hypothesis revisited. 3. The genomic thesis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:338-42