Limits...
Treatment effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator associated with fixed appliances.

Neves LS, Janson G, Cançado RH, de Lima KJ, Fernandes TM, Henriques JF - Prog Orthod (2014)

Bottom Line: The sample comprised 77 young individuals divided into 3 groups: Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.15 years; group 2 had 30 patients, treated with the Bionator and fixed appliances, for a mean treatment time of 3.92 years; and the control group included 22 subjects followed for a mean period of 2.13 years.Intergroup comparison at the initial stage and of the treatment changes were performed by analysis of variance.Their effects consisted in a restrictive effect on the maxilla, a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors in both groups and intrusion with the Jasper Jumper appliance, maxillary molar distalization with the Jasper Jumper, extrusion and mesialization of the mandibular molars, both appliances provided significant improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil. leniananeves@uol.com.br.

ABSTRACT

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator, associated with fixed appliances.

Methods: The sample comprised 77 young individuals divided into 3 groups: Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.15 years; group 2 had 30 patients, treated with the Bionator and fixed appliances, for a mean treatment time of 3.92 years; and the control group included 22 subjects followed for a mean period of 2.13 years. The initial and final lateral cephalograms of the patients were evaluated. Intergroup comparison at the initial stage and of the treatment changes were performed by analysis of variance.

Results: Their effects consisted in a restrictive effect on the maxilla, a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors in both groups and intrusion with the Jasper Jumper appliance, maxillary molar distalization with the Jasper Jumper, extrusion and mesialization of the mandibular molars, both appliances provided significant improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship.

Conclusions: The effects of both appliances in class II malocclusion treatment are similar; however, treatment with the Jasper Jumper was shorter than with the Bionator.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Dentoalveolar cephalometric variables: 1, 1.PP; 2, 1-PP; 3, 6-PP; 4, 6-ANSperp; 5, 1.NA; 6, 1-NA; 7, IMPA; 8, 1-GoMe; 9, 1.NB; 10, 1-NB; 11, 6-Pogperp; 12, 6-GoMe.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4150943&req=5

Fig3: Dentoalveolar cephalometric variables: 1, 1.PP; 2, 1-PP; 3, 6-PP; 4, 6-ANSperp; 5, 1.NA; 6, 1-NA; 7, IMPA; 8, 1-GoMe; 9, 1.NB; 10, 1-NB; 11, 6-Pogperp; 12, 6-GoMe.

Mentions: Lateral cephalograms of each patient were taken at the pre- and posttreatment stages (T1 and T2, respectively). Anatomic tracings of the lateral cephalograms and landmark locations were manually conducted and digitized (AccuGrid XNT, model A30TL.F, Numonics, Montgomeryville, PA, USA) by one investigator (L.S.N.). These data were then stored in a computer and analyzed with Dentofacial Planner software (version 7.02, Dentofacial Software, Toronto, ON, Canada). This software corrected the magnification factors (6%, 7.9%, and 9.8%) of the radiographic images. The less usual cephalometric variables are illustrated in Table 1 and Figure 3.Table 1


Treatment effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator associated with fixed appliances.

Neves LS, Janson G, Cançado RH, de Lima KJ, Fernandes TM, Henriques JF - Prog Orthod (2014)

Dentoalveolar cephalometric variables: 1, 1.PP; 2, 1-PP; 3, 6-PP; 4, 6-ANSperp; 5, 1.NA; 6, 1-NA; 7, IMPA; 8, 1-GoMe; 9, 1.NB; 10, 1-NB; 11, 6-Pogperp; 12, 6-GoMe.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4150943&req=5

Fig3: Dentoalveolar cephalometric variables: 1, 1.PP; 2, 1-PP; 3, 6-PP; 4, 6-ANSperp; 5, 1.NA; 6, 1-NA; 7, IMPA; 8, 1-GoMe; 9, 1.NB; 10, 1-NB; 11, 6-Pogperp; 12, 6-GoMe.
Mentions: Lateral cephalograms of each patient were taken at the pre- and posttreatment stages (T1 and T2, respectively). Anatomic tracings of the lateral cephalograms and landmark locations were manually conducted and digitized (AccuGrid XNT, model A30TL.F, Numonics, Montgomeryville, PA, USA) by one investigator (L.S.N.). These data were then stored in a computer and analyzed with Dentofacial Planner software (version 7.02, Dentofacial Software, Toronto, ON, Canada). This software corrected the magnification factors (6%, 7.9%, and 9.8%) of the radiographic images. The less usual cephalometric variables are illustrated in Table 1 and Figure 3.Table 1

Bottom Line: The sample comprised 77 young individuals divided into 3 groups: Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.15 years; group 2 had 30 patients, treated with the Bionator and fixed appliances, for a mean treatment time of 3.92 years; and the control group included 22 subjects followed for a mean period of 2.13 years.Intergroup comparison at the initial stage and of the treatment changes were performed by analysis of variance.Their effects consisted in a restrictive effect on the maxilla, a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors in both groups and intrusion with the Jasper Jumper appliance, maxillary molar distalization with the Jasper Jumper, extrusion and mesialization of the mandibular molars, both appliances provided significant improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil. leniananeves@uol.com.br.

ABSTRACT

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator, associated with fixed appliances.

Methods: The sample comprised 77 young individuals divided into 3 groups: Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.15 years; group 2 had 30 patients, treated with the Bionator and fixed appliances, for a mean treatment time of 3.92 years; and the control group included 22 subjects followed for a mean period of 2.13 years. The initial and final lateral cephalograms of the patients were evaluated. Intergroup comparison at the initial stage and of the treatment changes were performed by analysis of variance.

Results: Their effects consisted in a restrictive effect on the maxilla, a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors in both groups and intrusion with the Jasper Jumper appliance, maxillary molar distalization with the Jasper Jumper, extrusion and mesialization of the mandibular molars, both appliances provided significant improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship.

Conclusions: The effects of both appliances in class II malocclusion treatment are similar; however, treatment with the Jasper Jumper was shorter than with the Bionator.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus