Rahman Showkatbakhsh; Abdolreza Jamilian; Ladan Eslamian
Abstract
Aim: The main goal of this study was to compare the effects of a differently designed functional appliance (R-appliance) with a bionator treated group in Class II Division I (C1 II Div I) cases.Materials and Methods: 22 patients (12 girls, 10 boys) treated with R-Appliance were selected as experimental ...
Read More
Aim: The main goal of this study was to compare the effects of a differently designed functional appliance (R-appliance) with a bionator treated group in Class II Division I (C1 II Div I) cases.Materials and Methods: 22 patients (12 girls, 10 boys) treated with R-Appliance were selected as experimental group. Control group consisted of 22 patients (11 boys, 11 girls) treated with a bionator. All of the patients had a C1 II Div I malocclusion due to mandibular deficiency. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed at the beginning (T1, T 1) and the end of the study (T 2, T 2).Results: Paired T-test showed that SNB significantly increased in both groups. The same test revealed that IMPA was reduced in the R-appliances treated group by 4.5°±3.5° (P<0.001) but it was increased by 1.9°±3.9° (P<0.03) in the bionator group. Analysis utilizing T-test showed that the inter group difference of IMPA was statistically significant (P<0.01). SNA showed an increase of 0.1°±1.6° (P<0.9) in the R-appliance treated group; while, it was decreased for 0.4°±0.9° (P<0.1) in the bionator treated group.
Conclusions: Both groups were successful in advancement of mandible; however, the R-appliance achieved this result without retroclination of the lower incisors.
Maryam Poosit; Mohammad Basafa; Farzaneh Ahrari; Amin Reza Movahedian
Abstract
Aim: There is little information about the diagnostic ability of SNB and Facial angles in class II malocclusion. The aim of this study was to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of SNB and Facial angle in diagnosing anteroposterior position of mandible in patients with skeletal class II malocclusion.Material ...
Read More
Aim: There is little information about the diagnostic ability of SNB and Facial angles in class II malocclusion. The aim of this study was to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of SNB and Facial angle in diagnosing anteroposterior position of mandible in patients with skeletal class II malocclusion.Material and Methods: Pretreatment cephalograms of 76 patients with skeletal class II malocclusion were assessed in this study. Sensitivity and specificity of SNB and Facial angles were determined using SPSS and ROC (Receiver Operative Characteristics) curves.Results: Sensitivity and specificity of Facial angle were 61 and 70 percent, respectively. The corresponding values for SNB angle were 40 and 86 percent. The highest sensitivity and specificity for SNB and Facial angles related to 75.5 and 79.5 degrees, respectively.Conclusion: The findings showed that in diagnosing mandibular anteroposterior position of class II patients, Facial angle is more sensitive and SNB angle is more specific. Moreover, it is suggested that in cephalometric analysis, patients with Facial and SNB angles less than 79.5 and 75.5 degree respectively, be assumed to have skeletal class II malocclusion.
