Early treatment of skeletal class Ⅱ malocclusion: A systematic review speciality

MU Yirui,ZHOU Hong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-3733.2012.03.021
2012-01-01
Abstract:Objective: To compare the effects of different functional appliances in the treatment of skeletal class Ⅱ malocclusion.Methods: A literature survey was performed by applying the database of MEDLINE and CNKI.The Data of clinical randomized controlle trials(RCTs) and controlled clinical trials(CCTs) were selected,Meta analysis was conducted with the software Review 4.2.Results: The search strategy resulted in 111 English articles and 43 Chinese articles.19 articles were qualified for the final analysis.In the qualified articles the treatment effects of 5 kinds of functional appliance were reported.The decrease of SNA was not significantly different between the groups of Activatoer and Binator,SNA decreased more in Twin-block group than in Herbst.The increase of SNB in group Twin-block=in Activator>in Herbst>in Bionator.The decrese of ANB in group of Twin-block>in Activator>in Bionator>in Herbst>in Frnkel-Ⅱ.The decrease of overjet in group of Twin-block>in Herbst>in Frnkel-Ⅱ.The decrease of U1-NA in group of Frnkel-Ⅱ>in Activator>Herbst.The decrease of U1-PP in group Twin-block>in Frnkel-Ⅱ>in Bionator.The increase of IMPA in group Herbst>in Bionator>in Twin-block.IMPA was not significantly different between the groups of Activator and Frnkel-Ⅱ.Conclusion: Frnkel-Ⅱ is not effective in the treatment of sever skeletal Class Ⅱ malocclusions while Twin-block and Activor are.Patients with low IMPA or with poor treatment compliance should be treated with Herbst.Activator is more effective than Bionator in correction of skeletal sagital problem and lingual inclination of upper anterior teeth.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?