Advertisement

Effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with functional appliances on mandibular growth in the short term

      Introduction

      The aim of this study was to analyze the current literature for the best evidence (randomized clinical trials) about the efficacy of functional appliances on mandibular growth in the short term.

      Methods

      A survey of articles published up to September 2009 was performed by using the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The reference lists of the retrieved articles were hand-searched for possible missing articles. No language restriction was applied during the identification of the published studies. A methodologic scoring process was developed to identify which randomized clinical trials were stronger methodologically. The selection process and the quality assessment were undertaken independently and in duplicate by 2 authors. A meta-analysis was attempted by using random-effects models. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity was examined, and a sensitivity analysis was performed.

      Results

      Electronic searches identified the following items: 146 articles were retrieved from PubMed, 45 from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, 29 from Ovid, 42 from LILACS, 628 from Web of Science, and 1000 from Google Scholar. Thirty-two articles fulfilled the specific inclusion criteria and were identified as potentially appropriate randomized clinical trials to be included in this meta-analysis. Only 4 articles, based on data from 338 patients (168 treated vs 170 controls) with Class II malocclusion in the mixed dentition, were selected for the final analysis. The quality analysis of these studies showed that the statistical methods were at the medium-high level. The outcome measurements chosen to evaluate the efficacy of the various functional appliances were Co-Pg, Pg/Olp + Co/Olp, and Co-Gn and the values were annualized and standardized to a uniform scale with the standardized mean differences (SMD). The results of the meta-analysis from the random-effects model showed a statistically significant difference of 1.79 mm in annual mandibular growth of the treatment group compared with the control group (SMD = 0.61, 95% CI, 0.30 to –0.93; chi-square test, 5.34; 3 df; P = 0.15; I2 = 43.9%; test for overall effect, Z = 3.83 and P = 0.0001). The sensitivity analysis showed a substantially similar outcome of 1.91 mm (SMD = 0.65, 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.25; chi-square test, 4.96; 2 df; P = 0.08; I2 = 59.7%; test for overall effect, Z = 3.19 and P = 0.001).

      Conclusions

      The analysis of the effect of treatment with functional appliances vs an untreated control group showed that skeletal changes were statistically significant, but unlikely to be clinically significant.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • McNamara Jr., J.A.
        Components of Class II malocclusions in children 8-10 years of age.
        Angle Orthod. 1981; 51: 177-202
        • Johnson L.E.
        Orthodontics: state of the art, essence of the science.
        C V. Mosby, St Louis1986 (p. 88-99)
        • Wieslander L.
        • Lagerstrom L.
        The effect of activator treatment on Class II malocclusions.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1979; 75: 20-26
        • Moss M.L.
        • Salentijn L.
        The primary role of functional matrices in facial growth.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1969; 55: 566-577
        • Frankel R.
        The treatment of Class II, Division 1 malocclusion with functional correctors.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1969; 55: 265-275
        • Woodside D.G.
        • Altuna G.
        • Harvold E.
        • Herbert M.
        • Metaxas A.
        Primate experiments in malocclusion and bone induction.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1983; 83: 460-468
        • McNamara Jr., J.A.
        • Bryan F.A.
        Long term mandibular adaptations to protrusive function: an experimental study in Macaca mulatta.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987; 92: 98-108
        • Charlier J.P.
        • Petrovic A.G.
        • Stutzmann J.
        Effects of mandibular hyperpropulsion on the prechondroblastic zone of rat condyle.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1969; 55: 71-74
        • Stockly P.
        • Willert H.
        Tissue reactions in the temporomandibular joint resulting from anterior displacement of the mandible in the monkey.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1971; 60: 142-155
        • Mills J.R.
        The effect of functional appliances on the skeletal pattern.
        J Orthod. 1991; 18: 267-275
        • de Almeida M.R.
        • Henriques J.F.
        • de Almeida R.R.
        • Ursi W.
        Treatment effects produced by Frankel appliance in patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion.
        Angle Orthod. 2002; 72: 418-425
        • Perillo L.
        • Johnston L.E.
        • Ferro A.
        Permanence of skeletal changes after function regulator (FR-2) treatment of patients with retrusive Class II malocclusions.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 109: 132-139
        • de Almeida M.R.
        • Henriques J.F.
        • Ursi W.
        Comparative study of the Frankel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 121: 458-466
        • Toth L.R.
        • McNamara Jr., J.A.
        Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the Fr-2 appliance of Fränkel compared with an untreated Class II sample.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116: 597-609
        • Baltromejus S.
        • Ruf S.
        • Pancherz H.
        Effective temporomandibular joint growth and chin position changes: activator versus Herbst treatment. A cephalometric roentgenographic study.
        Eur J Orthod. 2002; 24: 627-637
        • Croft R.S.
        • Buschang P.H.
        • English J.D.
        • Meyer R.
        A cephalometric and tomographic evaluation of Herbst treatment in the mixed dentition.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116: 435-443
        • Pancherz H.
        • Ruf S.
        • Kohlhas P.
        Effective condylar growth and chin position changes in Herbst treatment: a cephalometric roentgenographic long-term study.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114: 437-446
        • Ruf S.
        • Baltromejus S.
        • Pancherz H.
        Effective condylar growth and chin position in activator treatment: a cephalometric roentgenographic study.
        Angle Orthod. 2001; 71: 4-11
        • Creekmore T.D.
        • Radney L.J.
        Frankel appliance therapy: orthopedic or orthodontic?.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1983; 83: 89-108
        • Giannelly A.
        • Bronson P.
        • Martignoni M.
        • Bernstein L.
        Mandibular growth, condylar position and Fränkel appliance therapy.
        Angle Orthod. 1983; 53: 131-142
        • Vargervik K.
        • Harvold E.P.
        Response to activator treatment in Class II malocclusions.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1985; 88: 242-251
        • Robertson N.R.E.
        An examination of treatment changes in children treated with the functional regulator of Frankel.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1983; 83: 299-310
        • Janson G.R.
        • Toruno J.L.
        • Martins D.R.
        • Henriques J.F.
        • de Freitas M.R.
        Class II treatment effects of the Frankel appliance.
        Eur J Orthod. 2003; 25: 301-309
        • Baccetti T.
        • Franchi L.
        • Toth L.R.
        • McNamara J.A.
        Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 118: 159-170
        • Basciftci F.A.
        • Uysal T.
        • Buyukerkmen A.
        • San Z.
        The effects of activator treatment on the craniofacial structures of Class II division 1 patients.
        Eur J Orthod. 2003; 25: 87-93
        • McNamara J.A.
        • Bookstein F.L.
        • Shaughnessy T.G.
        Skeletal and dental changes following functional regulator therapy on Class II patients.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1985; 88: 91-111
        • Courtney M.
        • Harkness M.
        • Herbison P.
        Maxillary and cranial base changes during treatment with functional appliances.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 109: 616-624
        • Tulloch J.F.C.
        • Medland W.
        • Tuncay O.C.
        Methods used to evaluate growth modification in Class II malocclusion.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98: 340-347
      1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5 (updated May 2005). Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/hbook.htm.

      2. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.0.2 (updated September 2009). Available at: http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/cochrane/handbook.htm.

        • Jakobsson S.O.
        Cephalometric evaluation of treatment effect on Class II Division 1 malocclusions.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1967; 53: 446-457
        • Nelson C.
        • Harkness M.
        • Herbison P.
        Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 104: 153-161
        • Tulloch J.F.C.
        • Phillips C.
        • Koch G.
        • Proffit W.R.
        The effect of early intervention on skeletal pattern in Class II malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 111: 391-400
        • O’Brien K.
        • Wright J.
        • Conboy F.
        • Sanjie Y.
        • Mandall N.
        • Chadwick S.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: dental and skeletal effects.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124: 234-243
        • Webster T.
        • Harkness M.
        • Herbison P.
        Associations between changes in selected facial dimensions and the outcome of orthodontic treatment.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 110: 46-53
        • Cura N.
        • Saraç M.
        The effect of treatment with the Bass appliance on skeletal Class II malocclusions: a cephalometric investigation.
        Eur J Orthod. 1997; 19: 691-702
        • Mao J.
        • Zhao H.
        The correction of Class II, division 1 malocclusion with bionator headgear combination appliance.
        J Tongji Med Univ. 1997; 17: 254-256
        • Tulloch J.F.
        • Proffit W.R.
        • Phillips C.
        Influences on the outcome of early treatment for Class II malocclusion.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 111: 533-542
        • Keeling S.D.
        • Wheeler T.T.
        • King G.J.
        • Garvan C.W.
        • Cohen D.A.
        • Carbassa S.
        • et al.
        Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113: 40-50
        • Ghafari J.
        • Shofer F.S.
        • Jacobsson-Hunt U.
        • Markowitz D.L.
        • Laster L.L.
        Headgear versus function regulator in the early treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113: 51-61
        • Tulloch J.F.C.
        • Phillips C.
        • Proffit W.R.
        Benefit of early Class II treatment: progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113: 62-72
        • Illing H.M.
        • Morris D.O.
        • Lee R.T.
        A prospective evaluation of Bass, bionator and twin block appliances. Part I—the hard tissues.
        Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20: 501-516
        • Ehmer U.
        • Tulloch C.J.
        • Proffit W.R.
        • Phillips C.
        An international comparison of early treatment of angle Class-II/1 cases. Skeletal effects of the first phase of a prospective clinical trial.
        J Orofac Orthop. 1999; 60: 392-408
        • Wheeler T.T.
        • McGorray S.P.
        • Dolce C.
        • Taylor M.G.
        • King G.J.
        Effectiveness of early treatment of Class II malocclusion.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 121: 9-17
        • Cevidanes L.H.
        • Franco A.A.
        • Scanavini M.A.
        • Vigorito J.W.
        • Enlow D.H.
        • Proffit W.R.
        Clinical outcomes of Fränkel appliance therapy assessed with a counterpart analysis.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 123: 379-387
        • King G.J.
        • McGorray S.P.
        • Wheeler T.T.
        • Dolce C.
        • Taylor M.
        Comparison of peer assessment ratings (PAR) from 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols for Class II malocclusions.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 123: 489-496
        • O’Brien K.
        • Wright J.
        • Conboy F.
        • Sanjie Y.
        • Mandall N.
        • Chadwick S.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or Twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124: 128-137
        • Araujo A.M.
        • Buschang P.H.
        • Melo A.C.M.
        Adaptive condylar growth and mandibular remodelling changes with bionator therapy. An implant study.
        Eur J Orthod. 2004; 26: 515-522
        • Huang G.
        Twin-block appliance is effective for the correction of Class II Division I malocclusion during mixed dentition.
        J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2004; 4: 222-223
        • Banks P.
        • Wright J.
        • O’Brien K.
        Incremental versus maximum bite advancement during Twin-block therapy: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126: 583-588
        • Tulloch J.F.
        • Proffit W.R.
        • Phillips C.
        Outcomes in a 2-phase randomized clinical trial of early Class II treatment.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 125: 657-667
        • Kalha A.
        Early treatment with the twin-block appliance is effective in reducing overjet and severity of malocclusion.
        Evid Based Dent. 2004; 5: 102-103
        • Gill D.S.
        • Lee R.T.
        Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini-block appliances: part 1. Hard-tissue changes.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127: 465-472
        • Cevidanes L.H.
        • Franco A.A.
        • Gerig G.
        • Proffit W.R.
        • Slice D.E.
        • Enlow D.H.
        • et al.
        Assessment of mandibular growth and response to orthopedic treatment with 3-dimensional magnetic resonance images.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128: 16-26
        • Cevidanes L.H.
        • Franco A.A.
        • Gerig G.
        • Proffit W.R.
        • Slice D.E.
        • Enlow D.H.
        • et al.
        Comparison of relative mandibular growth vectors with high-resolution 3-dimensional imaging.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128: 27-34
        • Efstratiadis S.
        • Baumrind S.
        • Shofer F.
        • Jacobsson-Hunt U.
        • Laster L.
        • Ghafari J.
        Evaluation of Class II treatment by cephalometric regional superpositions versus conventional measurements.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128: 607-618
        • Liu Ji-hui
        A comparative study of clinical effects of twin-block and straigth wire appliance combined with cervical headgear and Class II elastic on the treatment of Class II, division I malocclusion.
        Chinese Journal of Traditional & Western Medicine. 2006; 7: 1925-1929
        • Karacay S.
        • Akin E.
        • Olmez H.
        • Gurton A.U.
        • Sagdic D.
        Forsus nitinol flat spring and Jasper jumper corrections of Class II division 1 malocclusions.
        Angle Orthod. 2006; 76: 666-672
        • Lee R.T.
        • Kyi C.S.
        • Mack G.J.
        A controlled clinical trial of the effects of the twin block and Dynamax appliances on the hard and soft tissues.
        Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29: 272-282
        • Dolce C.
        • McGorray S.P.
        • Brazeau L.
        • King G.J.
        • Wheeler T.T.
        Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132 (erratum in: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:727): 481-489
        • Ren Y.
        Very few indications justify early treatment for severe Class II malocclusions.
        Evid Based Dent. 2004; 5: 100-101
        • O’Brien K.
        • Wright J.
        • Conboy F.
        • Appelbe P.
        • Davies L.
        • Connolly I.
        • et al.
        Early treatment for Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the Twin-block appliance: a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135: 573-579
        • Baccetti T.
        • Franchi L.
        • Stahl F.
        Comparison of 2 comprehensive Class II treatment protocols including the bonded Herbst and headgear appliances: a double-blind study of consecutively treated patients at puberty.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135 (e1-10): 698
        • Harrison J.E.
        Clinical trials in orthodontics II: assessment of the quality of reporting of clinical trials published in three orthodontic journals between 1989 and 1998.
        J Orthod. 2003; 30: 309-315
        • Papadopoulos M.A.
        • Gkiaouris I.
        A critical evaluation of meta-analyses in orthodontics.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131: 589-599
        • Chen J.Y.
        • Will L.A.
        • Niederman R.
        Analysis of efficacy of functional appliances on mandibular growth.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122: 470-476
        • Aelbers C.M.F.
        • Dermaut L.R.
        Orthopedics in orthodontics: part I, fiction or reality—a review of the literature.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 110: 513-519
        • Cozza P.
        • Baccetti T.
        • Franchi L.
        • De Toffol L.
        • McNamara J.A.
        Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129 (e1-12): 599
      3. Harrison JE, O’Brien KD, Worthington HV. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003452. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003452.pub2.

        • O’Brien K.
        • Wright J.
        • Conboy F.
        • Chadwick S.
        • Connolly I.
        • Cook P.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 2: psychosocial effects.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124: 488-495
        • Antonarakis G.S.
        • Kiliaridis S.
        Short-term anteroposterior treatment effects of functional appliances and extraoral traction on Class II malocclusion.
        Angle Orthod. 2007; 77: 907-914
        • O’Brien K.
        Orthodontic growth modification.
        Br Dent J. 2001; 191: 170
        • Standerwick R.G.
        Not all Class II patients alike.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136: 143