Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Skeletal effects in Angle Class II/1 patients treated with the functional regulator type II

Cephalometric and tensor analysis

Skelettale Therapieeffekte des Funktionsreglers Typ II bei Klasse-II/1-Patienten

Evaluierung mittels Kephalometrie und Tensoranalyse

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this work was to employ both cephalometric and tensor analysis in characterizing the skeletal changes experienced by patients with Angle Class II/1 malocclusion during functional orthodontic treatment with the functional regulator type II.

Methods

A total of 23 patients with Class II/1 malocclusion based on lateral cephalograms obtained before and after treatment with the functional regulator type II were analyzed. Another 23 patients with Angle Class II/1 malocclusion who had not undergone treatment were included as controls.

Results

Our cephalometric data attest to significant therapeutic effects of the functional regulator type II on the skeletal mandibular system, including significant advancement of the mandible, increases in effective mandibular length with enhancement of the chin profile, and reduction of growth-related bite deepening. No treatment-related effects were observed at the cranial-base and midface levels. In addition, tensor analysis revealed significant stimulation of mandibular growth in sagittal directions, without indications of growth effects on the maxilla. Its growth-pattern findings differed from those of cephalometric analysis by indicating that the appliance did promote horizontal development, which supports the functional orthodontic treatment effect in Angle Class II/1 cases.

Conclusions

Tensor analysis yielded additional insights into sagittal and vertical growth changes not identifiable by strictly cephalometric means. The functional regulator type II was an effective treatment modality for Angle Class II/1 malocclusion and influenced the skeletal development of these patients in favorable ways.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung

Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit war es, skelettale Veränderungen während der Therapie mit dem Funktionsregler Typ II (FR2) bei Angle-Klasse-II/1-Patienten mittels Kephalometrie und Tensoranalyse zu charakterisieren.

Methoden

Die Untersuchungsgruppe bestand aus 23 Patienten mit Angle-Klasse-II/1-Anomalie, deren Fernröntgenseitenbilder vor und nach FR2-Therapie analysiert wurden. Als Kontrollgruppen dienten 23 unbehandelte Probanden mit Angle-Klasse-II/1-Gebissanomalie. Die Auswertung erfolgte mittels Kephalometrie und Tensoranalyse.

Ergebnisse

Unter Anwendung der Kephalometrie zeigte sich, dass die Therapie mit dem Funktionsregler Typ II zu signifikanten Therapieeffekten in Bezug auf das skelettale mandibuläre System führt. Hierzu zählen eine signifikante Vorverlagerung des Unterkiefers, eine Zunahme der effektiven Unterkieferlänge mit einer Verbesserung des Kinnprofils sowie eine Reduzierung der wachstumsbedingten Bissvertiefung. Hingegen fanden sich keine Hinweise auf eine therapeutische Beeinflussung von Schädelbasis und Mittelgesichtsbereich. Die kephalometrischen Daten ergänzend zeigte die Tensoranalyse eine signifikante mandibuläre Wachstumsstimulation in sagittaler Richtung ohne Anhalt für eine Beeinflussung des maxillären Wachstums. Im Gegensatz zur Kephalometrie ergab die Tensoranalyse hinsichtlich des Wachstumsmusters eine Förderung der Horizontalentwicklung, die eine funktionskieferorthopädische Behandlung der Angle Klasse II/1 erleichtert.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die Tensoranalyse ermöglicht zusätzliche Erkenntnisse über Wachstumsveränderungen in sagittaler und vertikaler Richtung, die mit der Kephalometrie allein nicht zu identifizieren sind. Die Behandlung mit dem Funktionsregler Typ II war effektiv und führte zu positiver skelettaler Nachentwicklung.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Angelieri F, Franchi L, Cevidanes LHS et al (2013) Long-term treatment effects of the FR-2 appliance: a prospective evalution 7 years post-treatment. Eur J Orthod 36(2):192–199

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Baccetti T, Franchi L (2001) Maximizing esthetic and functional changes in Class II treatment by appropriate treatment timing. In: McNamara JAJ, Kelly K (eds) Frontiers of dental and facial esthetics Monograph 38 Craniofacial Growth Series. University of Michigan, Center for Human Growth and Development, Ann Arbor, pp 237–52

  3. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA (2005) The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod. 11(3):119–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Battagel JM (1996) The use of tensor analysis to investigate facial changes in treated class II division 1 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 18(1):41–54

  5. Bookstein FL (1982) On the cephalometrics of skeletal change. Am J Orthod 82(3):177–98

  6. Chadwick SM, Aird JC, Taylor PJ et al (2001) Functional regulator treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 23(5):495–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L et al (2006) Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129(5):599.e1–12

  8. Creekmore TD, Radney LJ (1983) Fränkel appliance therapy: orthopedic or orthodontic? Am J Orthod 83(2):89–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dahlberg G (1940) Statistical methods for medical and biological students. Intersience Publications, New York, p 1940

    Google Scholar 

  10. Falck F (1991) Long-term results of treatment of distal occlusion with the function regulator. Fortschr Kieferorthop 52(5):263–7

  11. Falck F, Fränkel R (1989) Clinical relevance of step-by-step mandibular advancement in the treatment of mandibular retrusion using the Fränkel appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 96(4):333–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fränkel R (1969) The treatment of Class II, Division 1 malocclusion with functional correctors. Am J Orthod 55(3):265–75

  13. Fränkel R, Fränkel C (1989) Orofacial orthopedics with the function regulator. Karger, Basel, München, Paris, London, New York, New Delhi, Singapore, Tokyo, Sidney

  14. Freeman DC, McNamara JA, Baccetti T et al (2009) Long-term treatment effects of the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 135(5):570.e1–6

  15. Houston WJ (1983) The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 83(5):382–90

  16. Janson GRP, Toruño JLA, Martins DR et al (2003) Class II treatment effects of the Fränkel appliance. Eur J Orthod 25(3):301–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kerr WJ, TenHave TR, McNamara JA (1989) A comparison of skeletal and dental changes produced by function regulators (FR-2 and FR-3). Eur J Orthod 11(3):235–242

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McNamara JA, Bookstein FL, Shaughnessy TG (1985) Skeletal and dental changes following functional regulator therapy on class II patients. Am J Orthod 88(2):91–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McNamara JA, Howe RP, Dischinger TG (1990) A comparison of the Herbst and Fränkel appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 98(2):134–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McNamara JA, Peterson JE, Alexander RG (1996) Three-dimensional diagnosis and management of Class II malocclusion in the mixed dentition. Semin Orthod 2(2):114–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Moyers RE, Bookstein FL (1979) The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 75(6):599–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nelson C, Harkness M, Herbison P (1993) Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 104(2):153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Perillo L, Cannavale R, Ferro F et al (2011) Meta-analysis of skeletal mandibular changes during Frankel appliance treatment. Eur J Orthod 33(1):84–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Perillo L, Castaldo MI, Cannavale R et al (2011) Evaluation of long-term effects in patients treated with Fränkel-2 appliance. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 12(4):261–266

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Perillo L, Johnston LE, Ferro A (1996) Permanence of skeletal changes after function regulator (FR-2) treatment of patients with retrusive Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 109(2):132–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Perillo L, Femiano A, Palumbo S et al (2013) Skeletal and dental effects produced by functional regulator-2 in pre-pubertal class II patients: a controlled study. Prog Orthod. 14(1):18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rodrigues de Almeida M, Castanha Henriques JF, Rodrigues de Almeida R et al (2002) Treatment effects produced by Fränkel appliance in patients with class II, division 1 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 72(5):418–425

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schneider C (2007) Die Behandlung von Klasse II-Patienten mit abnehmbaren Platten und funktionskieferorthopädischen Geräten -Bedeutung der Frontzahninklination und Wachstumsrichtung für das Behandlungsergebnis. Medizinische Dissertation, Tübingen

  29. Showkatbakhsh R, Castaldo MI, Jamilian A et al (2013) Treatment effects of R-appliance and Fränkel-2 in Class II division 1 malocclusions. Eur J Paediatr Dent 14(1):17–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Silvestrini-Biavati A, Alberti G, Silvestrini Biavati F et al (2012) Early functional treatment in Class II division 1 subjects with mandibular retrognathia using Fränkel II appliance. A prospective controlled study. Eur J Paediatr Dent 13(4):301–306

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stahl F (2007) Kephalometrische, tensoranalytische und visuelle Analyse des Gesichtsschädelwachstums bei unbehandelten Probanden mit regelrechter Gebissentwicklung vom 7. bis 18. Lebensjahr Med. Habilitationsschrift. [Rostock]

  32. Stahl F, Baccetti T, Franchi L et al (2008) Longitudinal growth changes in untreated subjects with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 134(1):125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Toth LR, McNamara JA (1999) Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel compared with an untreated Class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 116(6):597–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Witt E (1970) Die rechtzeitige kieferorthopädische Behandlung. In: Eschler J, Rakosi T, Witt E (eds) Kieferorthopädie für den praktischen Zahnarzt Eine Einführung. Werk, München, p 1970

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, University Medicine Rostock, Strempelstrasse 13, 18057, Rostock, Germany

    Simone Schulz, Bernd Koos, Kathrin Duske & Franka Stahl

Authors
  1. Simone Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernd Koos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathrin Duske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Franka Stahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd Koos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

S. Schulz, B. Koos, K. Duske, and F. Stahl declare that they have no competing interests.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Bernd Koos: PD, Dr. med. dent.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schulz, S., Koos, B., Duske, K. et al. Skeletal effects in Angle Class II/1 patients treated with the functional regulator type II. J Orofac Orthop 77, 420–431 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0050-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0050-4

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation