Control of the vertical dimension in Class II correction using a cervical headgear and lower utility arch in growing patients. Part I.
A retrospective cephalometric study was performed comparing three groups of 30 growing patients with Class II, Division 1 malocclusions. Group 1 was treated with a cervical headgear/lower utility arch combination (CHG/LUA), group 2 was treated with a cervical headgear alone (CHG), and the third group was untreated. The average treatment time was 1 year, 6 months. No other appliances were used during this period. Maxillary and mandibular dental and skeletal treatment responses were compared with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a Scheffe's test. In addition, a multiple stepwise regression was performed to determine whether pretreatment measures of facial pattern were accurate predictors of mandibular rotational response. Both treatment groups demonstrated significant reduction in maxillary protrusion. The CHG-only group showed significantly greater anterior descent of the palatal plane as compared with the untreated group. The maxillary molars showed significant distal movement in both treatment groups without any extrusion beyond that seen with normal growth. The maxillary incisor demonstrated significant retroclination in the CHG-only group. There was no statistical difference among the groups for variables commonly used for measuring mandibular rotation or protrusion. The change in vertical position of the lower molar was not significantly different among the groups. A CHG as used in this study produced maxillary orthopedic and orthodontic changes without upper molar extrusion beyond that seen with normal eruption and in the absence of an opening rotation of the mandible, even in subjects with dolicocephalic facial patterns. The LUA did not appear to influence lower molar eruption or mandibular rotational response. None of the commonly used predictors of facial pattern, such as the Y-axis, XY-axis, or MP angle, accurately predicted mandibular rotational response. Further study would be necessary to ascertain whether this was a result of their invalidation as predictors, or a result of the treatment strategy employed.
Cook
A H
AH
Department of Orthodontics, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Dentistry.
Sellke
T A
TA
BeGole
E A
EA
D002508:Cephalometry; D002648:Child; D005115:Extraoral Traction Appliances; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D008297:Male; D008312:Malocclusion, Angle Class II / Q000473:pathology / Q000628:therapy*; D008334:Mandible / Q000473:pathology; D008437:Maxilla / Q000473:pathology; D008445:Maxillofacial Development; D016382:Orthodontic Appliance Design; D011856:Radiographic Image Enhancement; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012399:Rotation; D014070:Tooth / Q000473:pathology; D014087:Tooth Movement Techniques / Q000295:instrumentation*; D014716:Vertical Dimension