ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Stomatologica 2020 April;69(2):79-86

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4970.19.04283-3

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Long-term dentoskeletal changes of class II growing patients’ treatment with the propulseur universal light appliance. A prospective controlled study

Marco MIGLIORATI ¹, Sara DRAGO ¹, Chiara CALZOLARI ¹ ✉, Fabio GALLO ², Domenico DALESSANDRI ³, Alessandro ORSINI ¹, Armando SILVESTRINI-BIAVATI ¹

¹ Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; ² Section of Biostatistics, Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; ³ Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

BACKGROUND: Class II is one of the most common malocclusions. The prevailing aspect in Class II patients is a mandibular deficiency. Various removable and fixed functional therapies are used in order to enhance the mandibular growth or position. The aim of this prospectively controlled study was to evaluate long-term dentoskeletal changes obtained by a functional appliance for Class II.
METHODS: Prospective controlled study, based on a sample size calculation. 26 Class II Division 1 patients (11.8±1.5 years) were consecutively treated with the propulseur universal light (PUL) appliance and a multi bracket appliance (PG), they were compared to a sample of 26 Class II untreated patients (11.5±0.8 years) (CG). Lateral cephalograms were taken before and after the PUL therapy, and after multibracket treatment. Interaction analysis was carried out to test whether the PUL parameters in treatment groups were different according to the acquisition times, using the Linear Mixed-Effects Model.
RESULTS: Significant ANB, Overjet and WITS differences existed in treatment groups according to the time. In particular, comparing to T1 vs. T0, the relative difference (RD) means in the control group were -0.34, -0.31 and 0.17 for ANB, Overjet and WITS, respectively. The corresponding RD means in the treated group PG were -1.58, -4.27 and -2.38. Comparing to T2 vs. T0, the RD means in the control group were -0.36, -0.51 and 0.63 for ANB, Overjet and WITS, respectively. While the corresponding RD means in the treated group were -2.08, -5.12 and -2.50.
CONCLUSIONS: The PUL appliance successfully corrected class II malocclusion. The long term correction was mainly due to dentoalveolar effects: therapy success was 91% for overjet correction and 76% for ANB correction. During the post functional appliance period, overjet was stable in 77% of the treated subjects, and ANB in 74% of the treated subjects.

KEY WORDS: Orthodontics; Mandibular advancement; Orthodontic appliances