Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Extraoral Traction Appliances”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1983

Treatment effects of Fränkel, activator and extraoral traction appliances.

The effects of the Fränkel appliance on the treatment of Class II, Division 1 malocclusion were compared with the activator, high-pull headgear, cervical traction and a control group. A sample of 16 Fränkel cases treated in the mixed dentition was tested in four craniofacial areas, with findings as follows: a. Maxillae, no significant horizontal effect b. Mandibular length, significantly increased c. Lower face height, widely variable effects. d. Less upper molar eruption and more lower molar eruption. Although the findings of this study should be interpreted as tentative, they do show the Fränkel appliance to have some different mean effects on the craniofacial complex. Variability is a most important aspect of the findings of this study. Future studies must deal not only with mean changes, but with the Fränkel appliance's variable effects on differential individuals. Optimal application of this appliance requires judgment in case selection and careful analysis of progress, using adequate follow-up records and a firm knowledge of normal growth and development of the craniofacial complex.

Activator Appliances↗
PubMed1989

[Control of vertical dimension in the treatment of Class II malocclusion using a combined activator and extraoral traction appliance].

The aim of this work is the study of effects on vertical dimension of a functional appliance: combination of headgear and activator. We have pointed out in this study: a good control of occlusal and palatal plans; vertical stability of ANS; no change of facial axis; intrusion of maxilla incisors; correction of anterior deep-bite. We concluded that this combination headgear activator, in addition to the sagittal correction of Class II, permitted a good control of vertical skeletal and dental dimensions.

Activator Appliances↗
PubMed1981

Bilateral buccolingual forces produced by extraoral traction.

Extraoral appliances have been typically employed to deliver force systems to move teeth in directions parallel to the sagittal plane of the face. Their potential for concurrently producing transverse (buccal or lingual) movement has still not been fully explored. This study considers theoretical and experimental aspects of the magnitude and direction of such forces and related moments.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗
PubMed2000

Comparison of Jones jig molar distalization appliance with extraoral traction.

In this study, 20 patients were evaluated. Ten were treated with intraoral distalization followed by fixed appliance therapy, and 10 were treated with extra oral traction followed by fixed appliance therapy. Molar relationship correction was achieved in 2.5 months with intraoral distalization and in 10.7 months with extraoral distalization. A significant anterior movement of the anchorage unit (P <.001) was observed with the intraoral distalization and a significant distal drift of premolars was observed in the headgear group (P <.05). Palatal plane was found to tip downward significantly in the headgear group (P <.05). Total outcome of the 2 methods were discussed evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of the 2 distalization methods.

Bicuspid↗
PubMed1994

[Orthopedics in orthodontics: fiction or reality? Literature review].

The purpose of this literature review is to investigate the orthopedic effect of functional appliances as activators. Herbst appliances and extraoral traction appliances. The matter on correction of skeletal Class II discrepancies in growing children remains controversial despite extensive research. However most authors agree on the fact that major contributions derive from dento-alveolar changes rather than from skeletal ones. Nevertheless, the authors of this review want to emphasize that the discussed Class II orthopedic appliances have an important value in clinical orthodontics. Due to scientific evidence, their orthopedic effect however, must be questioned so far.

Activator Appliances↗
PubMed1996

Orthopedics in orthodontics: Part I, Fiction or reality--a review of the literature.

The purpose of this review is to investigate the orthopedic effect of functional appliances such as activators and Herbst appliances, and the orthopedic effect of extraoral traction appliances. A systematic review of mostly English-language orthodontic articles reporting treatment of Class II malocclusions with different orthopedic appliances was carried out. According to this review, only Herbst therapy was able to change mandibular growth to a clinically significant extent. In part II of this study, the long-term effect of these changes will be evaluated.

Cephalometry↗
PubMed1988

Osseointegrated titanium implants for maxillofacial protraction in monkeys.

Titanium implants were placed surgically into the maxillary, zygomatic, frontal, and occipital bones of four pigtail monkeys. After a 4-month healing period, the implants were exposed and abutments were placed. Extraoral traction appliances were then attached to the abutments. The cranial implants were used to support the framework of the traction appliance; those in the facial bones were used to attach springs that delivered a protraction force. The application of force varied among animals. In animal A, the force was applied to the maxilla. In animal B, the force was applied to the zygomatic bones. Animals C and D had force applied to both the maxillary and zygomatic bones. A tensile force of 600 gm per side was maintained until approximately 8 mm of maxillary anterior displacement had occurred. This amount of movement required 12 weeks of force application in animals A and B, and 18 weeks in animals C and D. Cephalometric and dry skull analyses showed that the amount of skeletal protraction was significant. The findings also demonstrated that it was possible to control the direction of maxillary protraction. The facial implants remained immobile throughout the experiment.

Animals↗
PubMed1996

Distal movement of buccal segments with the "en masse" removable appliance--its value in treating patients with mild Class II, Division 1 malocclusions: Part I, clinical techniques (how to do it).

This retrospective study examines the therapeutic changes during the buccal segment retraction phase of treatment in 25 children with mild Class II, Division 1 malocclusions and for whom distalization of buccal teeth was the treatment of choice. Where significant mandibular retrognathia was diagnosed clinically, a functional treatment approach was indicated, and these children were not included in this study. Therapy was carried out with an upper removable expansion appliance and extraoral traction. It will be shown in Part II of the investigation that a full unit of buccal segment retraction can be expected, with a combination removable appliance/headgear technique.

Cephalometry↗
PubMed1998

Mandibular changes in persons with untreated and treated Class II division 1 malocclusion.

The growth potential of individuals with Class II malocclusions is of interest to the practicing orthodontist because such malocclusions constitute a significant percentage of cases. The purpose of this study was to evaluate on cross-sectional and longitudinal bases the changes in mandibular length and relationship and maxillary-mandibular relationships in untreated Class II subjects from deciduous to permanent dentition and also to evaluate the effects of orthodontic treatment, with and without the extraction of first premolars, on these relationships. Class II samples were compared with matched normal, untreated individuals. The Class II division 1 (Class II/1) untreated sample comprised 30 subjects, 15 males and 15 females. Each subject had a complete set of data at three stages of dental development-namely, Stage I, after the completion of eruption of the deciduous dentition; Stage II, at the time when the permanent first molars and most of the incisors have erupted (i.e., in mixed dentition); and Stage III, at the completion of eruption of the permanent dentition, excluding third molars. The Class II treated sample comprised 44 subjects (21 males, 23 females) treated with four first-premolar extractions and 47 subjects (20 males, 27 females) treated without extraction. Treatment was accomplished with the use of an edgewise appliance, appropriate extraoral traction, and Class II elastics. The extraction decision was based mainly on the presence of crowding and profile consideration. Records on 35 normal subjects (20 males, 15 females) were available from the Iowa Longitudinal Facial Growth Study. Cephalograms for the normal individuals were matched to the corresponding ages of the Class II cases. With regard to these findings, few consistent differences were noted between the untreated Class II/1 and normal subjects on cross-sectional comparisons. The differences in mandibular length and position were more evident in the early stages of development than at later stages. Longitudinal comparisons of growth profiles indicated that the growth trends were essentially similar between the untreated Class II/1 and normal subjects in the various parameters compared. The comparisons of growth magnitude indicated the presence of greater skeletal facial convexity in the untreated Class II/1 subjects, accompanied by a tendency for a more retruded mandible. Initial comparisons between the Class II/1 treated groups and normal subjects indicated that the Class II/1 malocclusions were associated with a larger overjet, deeper overbite, and greater ANB angle. After a 5-year treatment and observation period, an overall "normalization" in the mandibular and maxillary-mandibular skeletal relationships was noted in the treated Class II/1 subjects in both the extraction and the nonextraction groups compared with normal subjects. The changes were more pronounced in the extraction group.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Class II correction-reducing patient compliance: a review of the available techniques.

The correction of Class II malocclusions has been hampered by the use of appliances which require the patient to co-operate with headgear, elastics, or the wearing of a removable appliance. 'Non-compliance therapy' involves the use of appliances which minimize the need for such co-operation and attempt to maximize the predictability of results. This article reviews and describes the types of appliances used, and their mode of action-based on the current available research.

Activator Appliances↗