American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Original articleComparison of AdvanSync and intermaxillary elastics in the correction of Class II malocclusions: A retrospective clinical study
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)
- 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) - 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) - et al.
A comparison of Class II treatment changes noted with the light wire, edgewise, and Fränkel appliances
Am J Orthod
(1984) - 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) - et al.
Correction of Class II malocclusion with Class II elastics: a systematic review
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2013) - et al.
The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics
Semin Orthod
(2005) The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony
Am J Orthod
(1975)A method of cephalometric evaluation
Am J Orthod
(1984)Cephalometrics for you and me
Am J Orthod
(1953)- et al.
Treatment effects of the Herbst appliance
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1989)
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 ResearchComparison 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 OrthodonticsCitation 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].
Treatment effects of mandibular anterior position training versus a fixed Class II corrector in growing patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion
2018, Orthodontic WavesCitation 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].
Temporomandibular joint and skeletal changes in response to Twin block and Advansync appliance therapy – A three dimensional study
2023, APOS Trends in OrthodonticsOrthodontic biomechanics with intermaxillary elastics
2023, Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported.