Aim The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cephalometric changes in growing Class II patients with increased vertical dimension treated with cervical or high-pull headgear, by using an untreated control group with similar skeletal characteristics. Materials and methods From the initial sample, 56 patients satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 20 patients were treated with cervical headgear (CHG), 15 with high-pull headgear (HHG), and 21 were not treated (CG). Cephalograms were available for each subject at baseline (T1) and after treatment/observation time (T2) for the three groups. A total of 17 measurements were taken on the lateral head films. Group comparison among CHG, HHG and CG was done using ANOVA test. Results In the CHG group, 10 measurements presented significant T1-T2 modifications, while in the HHG only 5. The greatest reduction of Ba-N-A is observed in CHG when compared to HHG. The average reduction of convexity and overjet is greatest in CHG, followed by HHG and then CG. The greatest mean difference of U6 to L6 distance is observed in CHG. Conclusions In Class II high-angle growing patients, cervical headgear seems to be preferred in the correction of maxillary protrusion, molar relationship and increased anterior facial height. Extrusion of the upper molar may favour forward repositioning of the mandible and clockwise rotation in Class II patients with increased vertical dimension.

Comparison of cephalometric changes in Class II growing patients with increased vertical dimension after high-pull and cervical headgear treatment / L. Levrini, R. Fastuca, A. Caprioglio, O. Rossi, S. Sambataro, S. Bocchieri, N. Oppermann, M. Cicciù. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY. - ISSN 2035-648X. - 24:1(2023 Feb), pp. 36-41. [10.23804/ejpd.2023.24.01.06]

Comparison of cephalometric changes in Class II growing patients with increased vertical dimension after high-pull and cervical headgear treatment

A. Caprioglio;O. Rossi;
2023

Abstract

Aim The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cephalometric changes in growing Class II patients with increased vertical dimension treated with cervical or high-pull headgear, by using an untreated control group with similar skeletal characteristics. Materials and methods From the initial sample, 56 patients satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 20 patients were treated with cervical headgear (CHG), 15 with high-pull headgear (HHG), and 21 were not treated (CG). Cephalograms were available for each subject at baseline (T1) and after treatment/observation time (T2) for the three groups. A total of 17 measurements were taken on the lateral head films. Group comparison among CHG, HHG and CG was done using ANOVA test. Results In the CHG group, 10 measurements presented significant T1-T2 modifications, while in the HHG only 5. The greatest reduction of Ba-N-A is observed in CHG when compared to HHG. The average reduction of convexity and overjet is greatest in CHG, followed by HHG and then CG. The greatest mean difference of U6 to L6 distance is observed in CHG. Conclusions In Class II high-angle growing patients, cervical headgear seems to be preferred in the correction of maxillary protrusion, molar relationship and increased anterior facial height. Extrusion of the upper molar may favour forward repositioning of the mandible and clockwise rotation in Class II patients with increased vertical dimension.
Class II malocclusion; Headgear; Increased vertical dimension
Settore MEDS-16/A - Malattie odontostomatologiche
feb-2023
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
EJPD_2023_24_01_06.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 248.37 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
248.37 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1175899
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
  • OpenAlex 3
social impact