Class II treatment effects with fixed functional appliances: Jasper jumper vs. Forsus fatigue resistant device.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare cephalometric changes of Class II malocclusion patients treated with Jasper Jumper and Forsus, associated with fixed appliances. METHODS: The sample consisted of 62 individuals divided into 3 groups: group 1 included 22 subjects with a mean initial age of 12.39 years, treated with Jasper Jumper associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.43 years; group 2 included 19 subjects with a mean initial age of 12.43 years, treated with Forsus associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 3.54 years; and group 3 included 22 Class II malocclusion untreated subjects at a mean age of 12.14 years, followed for a mean period of 1.78 years. Intergroup comparison was performed with one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey test. RESULTS: Both treated groups had similar dentoskeletal changes: restrictive effect on the maxilla; clockwise rotation of the occlusal plane; mild increase in lower anterior facial height; limitation on the vertical development of the maxillary molars; labial tipping and intrusion of the mandibular incisors; extrusion of mandibular molars; improvements of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite, molar relationship; and retrusion of the upper lip. The mandibular incisors exhibited greater protrusion in group 1 compared to the other groups. In addition, group 2 presented mild protrusion of the lower lip, and groups 1 and 3 showed mild retrusion. CONCLUSION: The Jasper Jumper and Forsus appliances were effective and showed similar changes in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.

Comparison of the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes with the cervical headgear and Jones Jig followed by fixed appliances in Class II malocclusion patients: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes of patients with Class II malocclusion treated with cervical headgear and Jones Jig appliances, followed by fixed appliances. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample comprised 46 Class II malocclusion patients divided into two groups. Patients with Class II malocclusion based on the ANB angle and plaster model analyses, needing non-extraction orthodontic treatment, absence of mandibular crowding and no previous orthodontic treatment were eligible to be selected. Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with cervical headgear (CH) followed by fixed appliances for a mean period of 3.26 years and group 2 consisted of 21 patients treated with the Jones Jig (JJ) appliance for a mean of 4.29 years. Lateral cephalograms were evaluated at the beginning and at the end of orthodontic treatment. For intergroup comparisons, t and Mann-Whitney tests were performed. RESULTS: The cervical headgear group produced significantly greater maxillary anterior displacement restriction (SNA; CH: -0.97°±1.33; JJ: 0.07°±1.73; P=0.025), apical base discrepancy improvement (ANB; CH: -1.52°±1.25; JJ: 0.36°±1.46; P=0.006), FMA reduction (CH: -0.78°±2.68; JJ: 1.07°±2.84; P=0.028) and distal mandibular molar angulation (Md6.PM; CH: 6.97°±3.66; JJ: 2.77°±6.87; P=0.013) than the Jones Jig group. CONCLUSIONS: Both distalizers followed by fixed appliances were effective to correct Class II malocclusion. The cervical headgear group presented skeletal effects with less treatment time and there were no significant intergroup differences regarding soft tissue changes.

Estudo comparativo das alterações do tratamento da má oclusão de classe II com os aparelhos propulsores Jasper Jumper e Twin Force Bite Corrector, associados ao aparelho fixo / Comparative study of changes in the treatment of Class II malocclusion devices with propellants Jasper jumper and Twin Force Bite Corrector, associated with fixed appliance

O objetivo desta pesquisa foi comparar as alterações cefalométricas de pacientes com má oclusão de Classe II divisão 1, tratados com os aparelhos Jasper Jumper e Twin Force Bite Corrector, associados ao aparelho ortodôntico fixo. A amostra foi composta por 120 telerradiografias em norma lateral de 60 pacientes, os quais foram divididos em 3 grupos: Grupo Experimental 1, constituído por 20 pacientes com idade inicial média de 12,39 anos, tratados por meio do aparelho Jasper Jumper associado ao aparelho fixo, por um período médio de 2,42 anos; Grupo Experimental 2, contendo 20 pacientes com idade inicial média de 11,83 anos, tratados com o aparelho Twin Force associado ao aparelho fixo, com tempo médio de tratamento de 2,59 anos; Grupo Controle, composto por 20 jovens, com idade inicial média de 12,13 anos e observados por um período médio de 2,21 anos. As alterações foram comparadas entre os grupos, por meio da Análise de Variância e do teste de Tukey. Observou-se que ambos os tratamentos apresentaram um efeito restritivo na maxila, houve melhora significante da relação maxilomandibular nos dois protocolos de tratamento avaliados e promoveram rotação horária do plano oclusal. O grupo Jasper Jumper, promoveu uma significante limitação do desenvolvimento vertical dos molares superiores em relação aos outros grupos. Os incisivos inferiores exibiram maior protrusão e uma extrusão dos molares inferiores nos grupos 1 e 2. Ambos os aparelhos melhoraram significantemente a relação maxilomandibular, os trespasses horizontal, vertical e a relação molar. Os protocolos de tratamento promoveram retrusão dos lábios superiores.(AU)

The aim of this study was to compare the cephalometric changes in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, treated with the Jasper Jumper and Twin Force Bite Corrector, associated with fixed orthodontic appliances. The sample consisted of 120 lateral cephalometric radiographs of 60 patients, divided into 3 groups: Experimental Group 1 comprised 20 patients with initial mean age of 12.39 years, treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with device fixed for an average period of 2.42 years; Experimental group 2 with 20 patients with initial mean age of 11.83 years, treated with Twin Force unit associated with braces, with an average treatment time of 2.59 years; Control Group, composed of 20 individuals, average initial age of 12.13 years and observed for an average period of 2.21 years. The changes were compared between groups by ANOVA followed by Tukey test. It was observed that both treatments presented a restrictive effect on the maxilla; there was significant improvement in the maxillomandibular relationship in the two treatment protocols groups evaluated and clockwise rotation of the occlusal plane. The Jasper Jumper group, provided a significant limitation of the vertical development of the maxillary molars in relation to other groups. The lower incisors showed greater protrusion and extrusion of mandibular molars in groups 1 and 2. Both appliances provided significant improvement of maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship. Groups 1 and 2 presented retrusion of the upper lip.(AU)

Efeitos cefalométricos promovidos pelos aparelhos extrabucal cervical e distalizadores de molares superiores Jones Jig, no tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II / Comparative cephalometric effects of cervical headgear and Jones Jig appliances in Class II malocclusion treatment

Introdução: Este estudo comparou os efeitos cefalométricos promovidos por dois aparelhos distalizadores de molares superiores distintos, o aparelho extrabucal cervical e o aparelho Jones Jig de caráter intrabucal, associados ao aparelho ortodôntico fixo. Objetivos: O objetivo do presente trabalho foi obter e comparar os valores entre os distalizadores , afim de saber quais as diferenças que ocorrem entre os protocolos de tratamento. Material e Métodos: O grupo AEB consiste de 25 pacientes apresentando má oclusão de Classe II, com idade média inicial de 13,00 anos, tratados por meio do aparelho extrabucal cervical associado ao aparelho ortodôntico fixo. O grupo Jones Jig foi de 21 pacientes possuindo má oclusão de Classe II, com idade média inicial de 12,88 anos, tratados com o aparelho Jones Jig seguido do aparelho ortodôntico fixo. Foram avaliadas as telerradiografias em norma lateral no início e no final do tratamento ortodôntico. Os grupos foram compatibilizados em relação à idade inicial, gênero da amostra, severidade da má oclusão de Classe II, características cefalométricas iniciais e finais. A partir das telerradiografias foram obtidos os traçados cefalométricos, utilizando-se o programa Dentalfacial Planner 7.02 para avaliação das grandezas esqueléticas e dentoalveolares. Foi realizado o teste estatístico teste t de Student não paramétrico para dados normais e o Man Witney para os dados não normais. Resultados: Houve um redirecionamento do crescimento maxilar no grupo AEB, resultando na restrição do vetor de crescimento maxilar para anterior, o que promoveu a melhora da relação maxilomandibular esquelética. No grupo Jones Jig, verificou somente efeitos dentoalveolares. Em ambos os protocolos de tratamento, não houve diferenças na mandíbula a não ser as diferenças que ocorrem naturalmente com o crescimento craniofacial. Não houve diferença nas repercussões de ambos os tratamentos no perfil facial tegumentar. Conclusão: Ambos os aparelhos...

Introduction: This study compared the effects of two cephalometric promoted by two different molar distalizers, the cervical headgear and intraoral Jones Jig appliance, associated with fixed orthodontic appliances. Objectives: The aim of this study was to obtain and compare values between two different types of distalizer devices in order to know what the differences that occur between the treatment protocols. Material and Methods: The headgear group consists of 25 patients with Class II malocclusion, with an initial mean age of 13,00 years, treated by cervical headgear associated with fixed orthodontic appliance. The Jones Jig group is 21 patients having Class II malocclusion, with an initial mean age of 12,88 years, treated with the Jones Jig appliance followed by fixed orthodontic appliance. We evaluated the lateral cephalograms at the beginning and end of orthodontic treatment. The groups were matched for initial age, sample gender, severity of Class II malocclusion, initial and final cephalometric features. The radiographs were obtained from the cephalometric, using Dentalfacial Planner 7.02 program to evaluate the skeletal and dentoalveolar magnitudes. The nonparametric statistical t test and Man Witiney was performed. Results: There was a redirection of maxillary growth in the headgear group resulting in the restriction of maxillary growth vector for earlier, which allowed improvement of skeletal maxillomandibular relationship. Jones Jig group, there were only dentoalveolar effects. In both treatment protocols, there were no differences in the jaw unless the differences that naturally occur with craniofacial growth. Conclusion: Both appliances have corrected the Class II malocclusion, similarly, with the sagittal stabilization of the upper dentoalveolar complex provided by the distalizers, while the lower dentoalveolar complex advanced in an anterior direction due to mandibular growth. There was no difference in the effects of both treatment...