• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.33 no.4 s.99
• /
• pp.247-257
• /
• 2003

Various methods have been used on patients with skeletal Class II division 1 malocclusion. The activator, Frankel appliance, headgear, Herbst appliance, and Twin-block appliance are some examples. The ideal treatment effect using these appliances would be to inhibit horizontal and vertical growth of the maxilla while promoting mandibular growth and obtaining optimum dentition. The Teuscher appliance has a simultaneous combined headgear effect with maxillary growth inhibition and an activator effect with mandibular growth promotion. The purpose of this study was to examine how well these effects were clinically obtained and the results are as follows. 1. The forward growth of the maxilla was effectively inhibited. 2. The downward-forward growth of the maxillary dentoalveolar complex was inhibited. 3. Growth promotion of the mandible was not observed. 4. The overjet, overbite, molar key were effectively improved. 5. The protruded upper lip and facial profile were unproved.

• 대한치과교정학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2000.11a
• /
• pp.46.1-46.1
• /
• 2000

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.31 no.4 s.87
• /
• pp.403-414
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment effects of the modified Teuscher appliance (MTA) in early Class II division 1 malocclusion. For this purpose, treatment effects of the bionator were compared with those of the MTA. The twenty subjects who were treated excellently with bionator and MTA were selected in each group. In pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms, 50 variables were measured, and then the differences between pretreatment and posttreatment data of the bionator and the MTA were statistically evaluated by t-test. The results were as follows : 1. The linear measurements that showed large difference between the bionator group and the MTA group are U1 to FH, U1 to PP, U6 to FH, U6 to PP, Ar-Pog, ramus height, L1 to A-Pog, L1 to facial plane (p<0.05). 2. The angular measurements that showed large difference between the bionator group and the MTA group are SNB, SNA, FABA, APDI (p<0.05). 3. The measurements of the growth pattern such as facial height ratio, FMA, SN-MP angle showed no difference between two groups (p>0.05). These results suggest that the bionator influence the mandiblar growth and lower dentoalveolar structures more than the MTA, and the MTA influence upper jaw and upper dentoalveolar structures more than the bionator comparatively in early Class II division I malocclusion.