Australasian Orthodontic Journal | 2021

Dentoskeletal and airway effects of the X-Bow appliance versus removable functional appliances (Frankel-2 and Trainer) in prepubertal Class II division 1 malocclusion patients

 
 
 

Abstract


3 © Australian Society of Orthodontists Inc. 2017 Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the dentoskeletal and airway effects of three different functional appliances (Frankel-2, Trainer and X-Bow) in prepubertal Class II division 1 patients. Methods: The sample consisted of 54 patients with a Class II relationship as a result of mandibular retrognathia and relative maxillary constriction. Group I included 15 patients treated with a Frankel-2 appliance. Group II consisted of 14 patients treated with a T4-K Trainer. Group III consisted of 15 patients treated with the X-Bow appliance. Group IV consisted of 10 untreated Class II patients who served as a control group. Pretreatment (T1) and post-treatment (T2) cephalograms were used to evaluate dentoskeletal and airway changes. Parametric one-way variance analysis (ANOVA) and a paired t-test were used to perform statistical analysis. Results: The decrease in SNA angle was significant in groups I and III, compared with the control group (p < 0.05). SNB angle and Co-GN length changes from T1 to T2 were statistically significant in groups I and II (p < 0.05), but not relative to the control group. The upper and lower incisors were significantly retruded and protruded, respectively, in all treatment groups (p < 0.05). Except PNS-AD2 and MAS measurements in group I, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal airway dimensions did not significantly change from T1 to T2 in all groups. Conclusions: The Frankel-2 and X-Bow appliances were efficient in restricting the forward growth of the maxilla. The Frankel-2 and Trainer appliances produced a larger sagittal increase in mandibular length than the X-Bow appliance. Lower incisor proclination was more pronounced in the X-Bow group. The effect of the treatment protocols was similar and matched the control group with respect to the airway. (Aust Orthod J 2017; 33: 3-13)

Volume None
Pages None
DOI 10.21307/aoj-2020-079
Language English
Journal Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Full Text