Comparison of AdvanSync and intermaxillary elastics in the correction of Class II malocclusions: A retrospective clinical study

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.05.008

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Volume 150, Issue 6, December 2016, Pages 979-988

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.05.008 Get rights and content

Highlights

•
Class II correction with AdvanSync was compared with intermaxillary elastics.
•
Both modalities were effective in normalizing Class II malocclusions.
•
AdvanSync worked through maxillary restriction and mandibular dentoalveolar changes.
•
Intermaxillary elastics worked through dentoalveolar changes in both jaws.

Introduction

Our objectives were to compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the AdvanSync appliance (Ormco, Glendora, Calif) with intermaxillary elastics in the correction of Class II malocclusions in growing patients.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted using lateral cephalograms of patients taken before and after comprehensive orthodontic treatment; 41 patients consecutively treated with the AdvanSync were compared with 41 similar patients treated with intermaxillary Class II elastics. All patients had significant growth potential during treatment, as assessed by cervical vertebral maturation. A comparison group was generated from historical data bases and matched to the experimental groups for skeletal age, sex, and craniofacial morphology. Treatment changes were evaluated between the time points using a custom cephalometric analysis generating 31 variables as well as regional superimpositions. Data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer tests.

Results

The effects of the AdvanSync and fixed orthodontics included maxillary growth restriction, protrusion, proclination, and intrusion of the mandibular incisors as well as mesialization of the mandibular molars (P <0.01). The effects of Class II elastics and fixed orthodontics were similar to AdvanSync, with the exceptions of less maxillary growth restriction and greater retrusion and retroclination of the maxillary incisors (P <0.01). Significant mandibular growth stimulation, relative to the untreated controls, did not occur with either modality.

Conclusion

AdvanSync and intermaxillary elastics were effective in normalizing Class II malocclusions during comprehensive fixed orthodontics. AdvanSync produced its effects through maxillary skeletal growth restriction and mandibular dentoalveolar changes. Class II elastics worked primarily through dentoalveolar changes in both the maxilla and the mandible.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

Ethics approval was obtained from the Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Treatment records were all obtained from 1 private orthodontic practice. Records included dated pretreatment (T1) and postcomprehensive treatment (T2) cephalometric radiographs, sex, date of birth, and dates of AdvanSync insertion and removal. All patients had signed consent forms permitting the use of their records for research purposes. Pretreatment overjet and

Results

The comparisons of the parameters at T1 of the treatment and control groups are shown in Table II. Only 2 measurements were significantly different between the 2 treatment groups. The Class II elastics patients initially had a greater overjet (P <0.01) and retruded soft tissue B point (B-VRL; P <0.05) relative to the AdvanSync group. Three measurements were significantly different between the AdvanSync and control groups (L1-APo, molar relationship, and L lip to E-plane; P <0.05), and 7 were

Discussion

This was a retrospective cephalometric study comparing the dental, skeletal, and soft tissue treatment effects of the AdvanSync appliance and Class II elastics in the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusions in growing patients wearing preadjusted edgewise fixed appliances. Our results showed that the 2 treatment modalities produced similar effects with some exceptions.

The major skeletal effect of the AdvanSync was maxillary restriction. This agrees with the only other study in the

Conclusions

1.
AdvanSync and intermaxillary elastics were effective in normalizing Class II malocclusions.
2.
AdvanSync corrected Class II malocclusions through maxillary skeletal growth restriction and mandibular dentoalveolar changes (incisor protrusion and proclination as well as molar mesialization).
3.
Intermaxillary elastics corrected Class II malocclusions primarily through dentoalveolar changes in both the maxilla (incisor retrusion and retroclination) and the mandible (incisor protrusion and proclination as

Acknowledgments

We thank Daniel Tuin for retrieving and organizing the data used in this study and James A. McNamara Jr. for his valuable input.

References (21)

B. Nelson et al.
Overjet reduction and molar correction in fixed appliance treatment of Class II, Division 1, malocclusions: sagittal and vertical components
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1999)
B. Nelson et al.
Class II correction in patients treated with Class II elastics and with fixed functional appliances: a comparative study
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2000)
A.A. Gianelly et al.
A comparison of Class II treatment changes noted with the light wire, edgewise, and Fränkel appliances
Am J Orthod
(1984)
E.K. Ellen et al.
A comparative study of anchorage in bioprogressive versus standard edgewise treatment in Class II correction with intermaxillary elastic force
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1998)
G. Janson et al.
Correction of Class II malocclusion with Class II elastics: a systematic review
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2013)
T. Baccetti et al.
The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics
Semin Orthod
(2005)
A. Jacobson
The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony
Am J Orthod
(1975)
J.A. McNamara
A method of cephalometric evaluation
Am J Orthod
(1984)
C.C. Steiner
Cephalometrics for you and me
Am J Orthod
(1953)
J.R. Valant et al.
Treatment effects of the Herbst appliance
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1989)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (20)

Evaluation of stress distribution patterns produced with the Advansync2 class II corrector - A finite element analysis
2023, Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research
This study used finite element modeling to investigate stress distribution patterns during treatment with Advan Sync 2 Class II correctors.
– A 3-D finite element model of the skull was constructed from images obtained from cone-beam computerized tomography images. Surface data of the AdvanSync2, brackets and archwires were derived and used to construct 3-D models. Stress distribution patterns and variations were assessed and quantified during appliance simulation and after advancement by 4 mm using spacers, on the finite element model.
Stress levels were recorded in Megapascals (MPa) and were visualized with a color scale. Maximum stress was evident in the mandible near the neck of condyle, anterior part of ramus and medial part of the coronoid process. Maxillary and mandibular teeth experienced negligible stress. Stress levels increased on advancing the appliance with spacers, though the regions and patterns of stress concentration in the maxilla and mandible remained constant to a great extent.
The AdvanSync2 is an appropriate fixed functional appliance to correct Class II malocclusions with a retrognathic mandible, as it does not apply unnecessary and deleterious stresses on the maxillary and mandibular teeth.
Comparison of the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes with the cervical headgear and Jones Jig followed by fixed appliances in Class II malocclusion patients: A retrospective study
2020, International Orthodontics
Citation Excerpt :
The increase in mandibular sagittal dimensions in both groups is a probable result of normal mandibular growth [19,32]. Ideally, when non-extraction Class II treatment has the objective to promote significant effects in the mandible, fixed functional appliances can be used [33]. An increase in the growth pattern angles in both groups was expected due to the extrusion of the maxillary molars [4,22].
To retrospectively compare the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes of patients with Class II malocclusion treated with cervical headgear and Jones Jig appliances, followed by fixed appliances.
The sample comprised 46 Class II malocclusion patients divided into two groups. Patients with Class II malocclusion based on the ANB angle and plaster model analyses, needing non-extraction orthodontic treatment, absence of mandibular crowding and no previous orthodontic treatment were eligible to be selected. Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with cervical headgear (CH) followed by fixed appliances for a mean period of 3.26 years and group 2 consisted of 21 patients treated with the Jones Jig (JJ) appliance for a mean of 4.29 years. Lateral cephalograms were evaluated at the beginning and at the end of orthodontic treatment. For intergroup comparisons, t and Mann-Whitney tests were performed.
The cervical headgear group produced significantly greater maxillary anterior displacement restriction (SNA; CH: −0.97° ± 1.33; JJ: 0.07° ± 1.73; P = 0.025), apical base discrepancy improvement (ANB; CH: −1.52° ± 1.25; JJ: 0.36° ± 1.46; P = 0.006), FMA reduction (CH: −0.78° ± 2.68; JJ: 1.07° ± 2.84; P = 0.028) and distal mandibular molar angulation (Md6.PM; CH: 6.97° ± 3.66; JJ: 2.77° ± 6.87; P = 0.013) than the Jones Jig group.
Both distalizers followed by fixed appliances were effective to correct Class II malocclusion. The cervical headgear group presented skeletal effects with less treatment time and there were no significant intergroup differences regarding soft tissue changes.
Treatment effects of mandibular anterior position training versus a fixed Class II corrector in growing patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion
2018, Orthodontic Waves
Citation Excerpt :
Telescopic systems, popular derivatives of the Herbst appliance, do not require patient compliance. Various fixed function systems exist, such as the AdvanSync appliance [14], Forsus Resistant Device [15], Jasper jumper [16] and Twin Force Bite Corrector [17,18]; the PowerScope™ is one of the newest of these systems [19]. Fixed functional appliances induce skeletal and dental changes to correct Class II malocclusion [15,17].
To compare treatment effects of Class II elastics and anterior mandibular position training against fixed Class II corrector (PowerScope™) during the correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion with fixed appliance in growing patients.
Thirty-six growing patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion with a retruded pogonion position were randomly allocated to the Class II elastics or PowerScope™ groups. Preadjusted edgewise fixed appliances were used in both treatment groups. Skeletal, dental and profile changes were compared using lateral cephalograms taken before (T₀), after initial alignment (T₁) and after Class I obtained (T₂) for 16/18 patients in the Class II elastics group and 15/18 patients in the PowerScope™ group.
The duration of treatment was significantly longer for the Class II elastics group than PowerScope™ group. In terms of skeletal changes, Class II elastics increased mandibular length, midfacial length and mandibular plane angle significantly more than the PowerScope™. In terms of dental changes, Class II elastics increased dental height significantly more than the PowerScope™.
Both treatment modalities reduced severity of Class II malocclusion and decreased profile convexity. Class II elastics with anterior mandibular position training increased mandibular length more but required longer treatment duration. The PowerScope™ had a greater effect on maxillary dento-alveolar restriction. (ClinicalTrials.in.th: TCTR 20180220003).
Temporomandibular joint and skeletal changes in response to Twin block and Advansync appliance therapy – A three dimensional study
2023, APOS Trends in Orthodontics
Comparative evaluation of skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes in skeletal class II treatment using PowerScope and AdvanSync2–A single center, retrospective study
2023, Research Square
Orthodontic biomechanics with intermaxillary elastics
2023, Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics

View all citing articles on Scopus

: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported.

View full text

Original articleComparison of AdvanSync and intermaxillary elastics in the correction of Class II malocclusions: A retrospective clinical study

Highlights

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Section snippets

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop

Am J Orthod

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop

Semin Orthod

Am J Orthod

Am J Orthod

Am J Orthod

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop

Original article
Comparison of AdvanSync and intermaxillary elastics in the correction of Class II malocclusions: A retrospective clinical study