Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Effects of Removable Functional Appliances on the Dentoalveolar Unit in Growing Patients
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Effects of Removable Functional Appliances on the Dentoalveolar Unit in Growing Patients
Do you wish to request the book?
Effects of Removable Functional Appliances on the Dentoalveolar Unit in Growing Patients
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Effects of Removable Functional Appliances on the Dentoalveolar Unit in Growing Patients
2024
Overview
Background and Objectives: The objective of this retrospective controlled study is to compare class II growing patients who underwent treatment with two different functional appliances: the Fraenkel regulator (FR-2), utilized as the control group, and the elastodontic device “Cranium Occluded Postural Multifunctional Harmonizers” (AMCOP), utilized as the test group. Materials and Methods: The study sample consisted of 52 patients with class II division I malocclusion (30 males, 22 females, mean age 8.6 ± 1.4 years) who were treated with the two different types of appliances: Group 1 (n = 27, mean age 8 [7.00, 9.00] years, 12 females, 15 males) received treatment with AMCOP, while Group 2 (n = 25, mean age 9.2 years [8.20, 10.00], 10 females, 15 males) received treatment with FR-2. The mean treatment duration for Group 1 was 28.00 [21.50, 38.00] months, while for Group 2 it was 23.70 [17.80, 27.40] months. Cephalometric analyses were performed on lateral cephalograms taken before treatment (T1) and after treatment (T2). Results: Significant intragroup differences were observed over time in Group 1 for 1^/PP. Similarly, significant intragroup differences were observed over time in Group 2 for SNB, ANB, and IMPA. Conclusions: Both treatment modalities resulted in the correction of class II malocclusion with dentoalveolar compensation, although the treatment duration with AMCOP tended to be longer on average.
Publisher
MDPI AG
Subject
