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

Rossi O.;Fastuca R.;Levrini L.;Caprioglio A.
2023-01-01

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.
2023
2023
Class II malocclusion; Headgear; Increased vertical dimension
Sambataro, S.; Rossi, O.; Bocchieri, S.; Fastuca, R.; Oppermann, N.; Levrini, L.; Cicciù, M.; Caprioglio, A.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

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/11383/2163691
 Attenzione

L'Ateneo sottopone a validazione solo i file PDF allegati

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact