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.

Effects Of A Modified Activator: Activator Combined With J Hook Headgear In The Treatment Of Hyperdivergent Class Ii Malocclusion During The Late Mixed Teeth Period

Effects of activator and high-pull headgear combination therapy: skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue profile changes

A comparative study on clinical effectiveness of activator and Headgear-Activator]

Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects

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

Temporomandibular Joint Changes after Activator Appliance Therapy: a Prospective Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.

Craniomaxillofacial Changes Using High-Pull J-Hook Headgear and Mini-Implant Anchorage in Adolescents: A Structural Superimposition Method

Evaluation of activator treatment with Pancherz class Ⅱ correction analysis for Angle Ⅱmalocclusion

Two-stage Correction of Class Ⅱ Skeletal Malocclusions with Activator-Head Gear Appliance and MBT Appliance

The clinic study related to modified vacuum film activator and traditional activator

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

[Effect of functional appliance on upper airway in adolescent patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion]

[Treatment of Class II malocclusion using Herbst appliance with headgear and rapid palatal expansion and straight wire appliance with implant anchorage]

Effects of headgear Herbst and mandibular step-by-step advancement versus conventional Herbst appliance and maximal jumping of the mandible

Long-term skeletodental changes with early and late treatment using modified C-palatal plates in hyperdivergent Class II adolescents

Skeletal, dental, and functional effects of headgear-activator therapy on Class II malocclusion in Japanese: a clinical case report

Biomechanical effects of Teuscher activator in hyperdivergent Class II malocclusion treatment: A finite element analysis

Effects of Intraoral Maxillary Protraction with Repetitive Rapid Palatal Expansions and Constrictions

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

Condylar growth and mandibular positioning with stepwise vs maximum advancement

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