Early headgear effect on the eruption pattern of maxillary second molars.
OBJECTIVE
To test the hypothesis that the use of a combination headgear (HG) during the first phase of orthodontic treatment has no effect on the eruption pattern of the maxillary second permanent molars.


METHODS
The records of the patients in a two-phase randomized clinical trial of early Class II treatment were utilized. The HG group comprised 47 patients, and the control (CON) group comprised 52 patients. The mean age of both groups was 9.4 years at the beginning of the clinical trial (T1). Cephalograms and panoramic views obtained at T1 and at the end of 15 months of phase I treatment or observation (T2) were utilized. The vertical and horizontal movements of the first and second upper molars (U6 and U7, respectively) were measured. The beginning of phase II (T3) and the end of phase II (T4) records were visually reviewed for follow-up of the eruption of the U7.


RESULTS
The pattern of movement for the distal and vertical displacement of the U6 and U7 was significantly different in the HG and CON groups (P < .001). At the end of phase I, none of the U7 in either group were diagnosed as malposed or suspected for impaction. At the end of phase II, all but one U7 with a possible cystic lesion had erupted.


CONCLUSIONS
The hypothesis is rejected. Forces exerted by combination headgear to the U6 in phase I have a distalizing effect and a transitory slowing down effect on the eruption of the U7 buds. These latter teeth always erupted except when pathology occurred.
Abed
Yossi
Y
Department of Orthodontics, Hadassah Faculty of Dental Medicine, Hebrew University Jerusalem, Israel. abedy@cc.huji.ac.il
Brin
Ilana
I
D002508:Cephalometry; D002648:Child; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D005115:Extraoral Traction Appliances; D006801:Humans; D008312:Malocclusion, Angle Class II / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy*; D008437:Maxilla; D008963:Molar / Q000502:physiology*; D014078:Tooth Eruption