Aim: To compare the effects of the quad-helix/crib (Q-H/C) appliance and of the open bite Bionator (OBB) in patients with open bite malocclusions. Materials and Methods: The Q-H/C sample consisted of 21 subjects, 15 females and 6 males. The average age for the Q-H/C group at T1 was 8.4 years ± 1.4 years, the mean age at T2 was 10.9 years ± 1.6 years, and the mean duration of treatment interval was 2.6 years ± 9 months. The OBB sample consisted of 20 subjects, 9 females and 11 males. The average age at T1 was 8.3 years ± 10 months, and it was 10.8 years ± 1.5 years at T2. Mean duration of observation interval was 2.5 years ± 1.2 years. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed prior to the start of treatment and approximately 1 year after the completion of active treatment. The T2-T1 changes in the two groups were compared by means of a nonparametric test for independent samples (Mann-Whitney U Test). Results: The group treated with the quad-helix/crib appliance showed a significantly greater increase in the overbite (1.9 mm more than the Bionator group) that was associated with a significantly greater amount of extrusion of upper incisors (1.5 mm more than the Bionator group). No other statistically significant differences were found. Conclusion: The comparison between two treatment protocols for skeletal open bite malocclusion revealed that the compliance-free Q-H/C appliance is significantly more effective than the open bite Bionator for the improvement of overbite.
Comparison between Bionator and Quadhelix/Crib appliance for treatment of anterior openbite / V. Giuntini; C. Masucci; C. Pavoni; T. Baccetti; L. Franchi; B. Chiodo. - In: WORLD JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS. - ISSN 1530-5678. - STAMPA. - Papers and Abstracts, 7th International Orthodontic Congress Sydney, Australia, February 6–9, 2010:(2010), pp. 0361-0361.
Comparison between Bionator and Quadhelix/Crib appliance for treatment of anterior openbite
GIUNTINI, VERONICA;MASUCCI, CATERINA;BACCETTI, TIZIANO;FRANCHI, LORENZO;
2010
Abstract
Aim: To compare the effects of the quad-helix/crib (Q-H/C) appliance and of the open bite Bionator (OBB) in patients with open bite malocclusions. Materials and Methods: The Q-H/C sample consisted of 21 subjects, 15 females and 6 males. The average age for the Q-H/C group at T1 was 8.4 years ± 1.4 years, the mean age at T2 was 10.9 years ± 1.6 years, and the mean duration of treatment interval was 2.6 years ± 9 months. The OBB sample consisted of 20 subjects, 9 females and 11 males. The average age at T1 was 8.3 years ± 10 months, and it was 10.8 years ± 1.5 years at T2. Mean duration of observation interval was 2.5 years ± 1.2 years. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed prior to the start of treatment and approximately 1 year after the completion of active treatment. The T2-T1 changes in the two groups were compared by means of a nonparametric test for independent samples (Mann-Whitney U Test). Results: The group treated with the quad-helix/crib appliance showed a significantly greater increase in the overbite (1.9 mm more than the Bionator group) that was associated with a significantly greater amount of extrusion of upper incisors (1.5 mm more than the Bionator group). No other statistically significant differences were found. Conclusion: The comparison between two treatment protocols for skeletal open bite malocclusion revealed that the compliance-free Q-H/C appliance is significantly more effective than the open bite Bionator for the improvement of overbite.
I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
