Abstract:Introduction: The goal of this retrospective cephalometric study was to compare orthodontic outcomes in patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion malocclusion treated with extraoral headgear or mini-implants for maximum anchorage. Materials: Forty-seven subjects with Angle Class II malocclusion or Class I bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion were treated by retracting the maxillary dentoalveolar process by using the extraction space of the bilateral maxillary first premolars. Two anchorage systems were used. Group 1 (n = 22) received traditional anchorage preparation with a transpalatal arch and headgear; group 2 (n = 25) received mini-implants (miniplates, miniscrews, or microscrews) for bony anchorage. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were superimposed to compare the following parameters between groups: (1) amount of maxillary central incisor retraction, (2) reduction in maxillary central incisor angulation, (3) anchorage loss of the maxillary first molar, (4) movements of the maxillary central incisor and first molar in the vertical direction, and (5) changes in skeletal measurements representing the anteroposterior and vertical jaw relationships. Results: The skeletal anchorage group had greater anterior tooth retraction (8.17 vs 6.73 mm) and less maxillary molar mesialization (0.88 vs 2.07 mm) than did the headgear group, with a shorter treatment duration (29.81 vs 32.29 months). Translational movement of the incisors was more common than tipping movement, and intrusion of the maxillary dentition was greater, in patients receiving miniplates than in those receiving screw-type bony anchorage, resulting in counterclockwise rotation of the mandible and a statistically significant decrease in the mandibular plane angle. Cephalometric analysis of skeletal measurements in patients with low to average mandibular plane angles showed no significant difference between groups, although greater maxillary incisor retraction and less mesial movement of the first molar were noted in the mini-implant group. In patients with a high mandibular plane angle, those receiving skeletal anchorage had genuine intrusion of the maxillary first molar and reduction in the mandibular plane angle, whereas those receiving headgear anchorage had extrusion of the maxillary first molar and an increase of mandibular plane angle. In contrast to the posterior movement in the headgear group, anterior movement of Point A was noted in the mini-implant group. Conclusions: In both the anteroposterior and vertical directions, skeletal anchorage achieved better control than did the traditional headgear appliance during the treatment of maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Greater retraction of the maxillary incisor, less anchorage loss of the maxillary first molar, and the possibility of counterclockwise mandibular rotation all facilitated the correction of the Class II malocclusion.

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

Effects of the cervical headgear in growing Angle Class II malocclusion patients: a prospective study

[Dentoskeletal effects of the maxillary splint headgear in the early correction of Class II malocclusion]

Treatment effects of the MARA appliance and Activator-Headgear combined with fixed appliances in Class II division 1 malocclusion patients: A retrospective longitudinal study

Treatment Effects of Simple Fixed Appliance and Reverse Headgear in Correction of Anterior Crossbites

Retrospective comparison of dental and skeletal effects in the treatment of Class II malocclusion between Herbst and Xbow appliances

Dentoskeletal and soft-tissue changes of class II malocclusion treatment with modified first class appliances: a prospective clinical trial

Effects of Removable Functional Appliances on the Dentoalveolar Unit in Growing Patients

Profile changes associated with different orthopedic treatment approaches in Class III malocclusions

Three-dimensional cone-beam computed technology evaluation of skeletal and dental changes in growing patients with Class II malocclusion treated with the cervical pull face-bow headgear appliance

Comparison of Dentoskeletal Changes In Skeletal Class II Malocclusion Using two Different Fixed Functional Appliances: A 2 Case Report

Headgear therapy in children with Class II malocclusion and the role of compliance on treatment outcome: A nine‐month randomized controlled trial

Comparative evaluation of a new removable Jasper Jumper functional appliance vs an activator-headgear combination

The effect of early intervention on skeletal pattern in Class II malocclusion: A randomized clinical trial

Dentoskeletal effects of functional appliances vs bimaxillary surgery in hyperdivergent Class II patients

Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion

Comparative evaluation of treatment effects between two fixed functional appliances for correction of class II malocclusion

The effect of cervical headgear on patients with high or low mandibular plane angles and the "myth" of posterior mandibular rotation

Treatment effects of the Carriere® Motion 3D™ appliance for the correction of Class II malocclusion in adolescents.

A retrospective cephalometric investigation of two fixed functional orthodontic appliances in class II treatment: Functional Mandibular Advancer vs. Herbst appliance

Facial soft tissue changes in adolescent patients treated with three different functional appliances: a randomized clinical trial