Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.1.38

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)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.45, no.1, 2015 , pp. 38-46 More about this Journal
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
Early treatment; Anterior open bite; Rapid molar intruder; Magnets;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.   DOI
2 Woods MG, Nanda RS. Intrusion of posterior teeth with magnets. An experiment in growing baboons. Angle Orthod 1988;58:136-50.
3 Cangialosi TJ. Skeletal morphologic features of anterior open bite. Am J Orthod 1984;85:28-36.   DOI
4 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.   DOI
5 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.
6 English JD. Early treatment of skeletal open bite malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:563-5.   DOI
7 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.   DOI
8 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.   DOI
9 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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
15 Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. London: George Alien and Unwin Ltd; 1940.
16 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.   DOI
17 Carano A, Machata W, Siciliani G. Noncompliant treatment of skeletal open bite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:781-6.   DOI
18 Cinsar A, Alagha AR, Akyalcin S. Skeletal open bite correction with rapid molar intruder appliance in growing individuals. Angle Orthod 2007;77:632-9.   DOI
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.   DOI
21 Bourauel C, Koklu SO, Vardimon AD. Integrated magnetic and elastic force systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:155-63.   DOI