Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cephalometric changes in growing patients with increased vertical dimension treated with cervical headgear

Kephalometrische Veränderungen bei Patienten mit erhöhter vertikaler Dimension bei Behandlung mit einem Zervikal-Headgear

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

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the present study was to investigate the cephalometric changes in patients with increased vertical dimension after treatment with cervical headgear compared to controls.

Methods

The sample of the present retrospective study consisted of 20 Class II patients (10 males, 10 females; mean age 8.54 ± 1.15 years) with increased vertical dimension treated with cervical headgear (treatment group) and 21 Class II patients (11 males, 10 females; mean age 8.41 ± 1.15 years) with increased vertical dimension who underwent no treatment (control group). Cephalograms were available for each subject at baseline (T1) and after treatment/observation time (T2) for both groups and cephalometric analysis allowed for evaluation of changes between time points and between groups.

Results

Regarding facial axis, N-ANS/ANS-Me, and overbite, there were no negatively significant changes in the treated group showing no significant worsening in the vertical dimension. Regarding facial angle, there was a significant increase in the treated group between the time points and when compared to the control group, showing counterclockwise rotation of the mandible in the treated group.

Conclusions

The vertical dimension was not significantly altered after cervical headgear treatment although the anterior facial height was higher at the beginning of treatment. There was significant counterclockwise rotation of the mandible, and clockwise rotation and distal displacement of the maxilla after treatment.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung

Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war es, die kephalometrischen Veränderungen bei Patienten mit erhöhter vertikaler Dimension der Okklusion nach Behandlung mit einem zervikalen Headgear im Vergleich mit einer Kontrollgruppe zu untersuchen.

Methoden

Die Stichprobe der retrospektiven Studie bestand aus 20 Klasse-II-Patienten (10 männlich, 10 weiblich; Durchschnittsalter 8,54 ± 1,15 Jahre) mit zervikalem Headgear bei erhöhter vertikaler Dimension (Behandlungsgruppe) und 21 Klasse-II-Patienten (11 männlich, 10 weiblich; Durchschnittsalter 8,41 ± 1,15 Jahre) mit erhöhter vertikaler Dimension die nicht behandelt wurden und als Kontrollgruppe dienten. Für jeden Patienten beider Gruppen gab es Kephalogramme vor Beginn (T1) und nach Beendigung der Behandlungs- bzw. Beobachtungszeit (T2). Die kephalometrische Analyse ermöglichte die Evaluation von Veränderungen sowohl zwischen den Zeitpunkten als auch zwischen den Gruppen.

Ergebnisse

Mit Bezug auf die Parameter Gesichtsachse, N-ANS/ANS-Me und Overbite bestanden keine signifikanten negativen Veränderungen in der Behandlungsgruppe und keine erheblichen Verschlechterungen der vertikalen Dimension. Im Hinblick auf den Gesichtswinkel war in der Behandlungsgruppe zwischen den Messzeitpunkten eine signifikante Erhöhung zu beobachten und—im Vergleich zur Kontrollgruppe—auch eine Rotation des Unterkiefers gegen den Uhrzeigersinn.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die vertikale Dimension erwies sich nach Behandlung mit einem zervikalen Headgear nicht signifikant verändert, auch wenn die vordere Gesichtshöhe zu Beginn der Behandlung erhöht war. Nach der Behandlung zeigten sich eine signifikante Rotation des Unterkiefers gegen den Uhrzeigersinn und eine Rotation des Oberkiefers im Uhrzeigersinn sowie eine Distalverlagerung des Oberkiefers.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alió-Sanz J, Iglesias-Conde C, Lorenzo-Pernía J, Iglesias-Linares A, Mendoza-Mendoza A, Solano-Reina E (2012) Effects on the maxilla and cranial base caused by cervical headgear: a longitudinal study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 17(5):e845–51

  2. Anghinoni ML, Magri AS, Di Blasio A, Toma L, Sesenna E (2009) Midline mandibular osteotomy in an asymmetric patient. Angle Orthod 79(5):1008–1014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S (2015) Treating Class II malocclusion in children. Vertical skeletal effects of high-pull or low-pull headgear during comprehensive orthodontic treatment and retention. Orthod Craniofac Res 18(2):86–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 11:119–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baumrind S, Korn LE, Isaacson JR, West EE, Molthen R (1983) Quantitative analysis of the orthodontic and orthopedic effects of maxillary traction. Am J Orthod 84:384–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bench WR, Gugino FC, Hilgers JH (1977) Bioprogressivetherapy. Part 2. J Clin Orthod 11:661–682

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bench WR, Gugino FC, Hilgers JH (1978) Bioprogressive therapy. Part 5. J Clin Orthod 12:48–69

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bench WR, Gugino FC, Hilgers JH (1978) Bioprogressive therapy. Part 7. J Clin Orthod 12:192–207

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bianchi B, Ferri A, Brevi B, Di Blasio A, Copelli C, Di Blasio C, Barbot A, Ferri T, Sesenna E (2013) Orthognathic surgery for the complete rehabilitation of Moebius patients: principles, timing and our experience. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 41(1):e1–e4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Boecler RP, Riolo LM, Keeling DS, TenHave RT (1989) Skeletal changes associated with extraoral appliance therapy: an evaluation of 200 consecutively treated cases. Angle Orthod 59:263–270

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cassi D, De Biase C, Tonni I, Gandolfini M, Di Blasio A, Piancino MG (2016) Natural position of the head: review of two-dimensional and three-dimensional methods of recording. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54(3):233–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cook AH, Sellke TA, BeGole EA (1994) Control of the vertical dimension in Class II correction using a cervical headgear and lower utility arch in growing patients. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 106:376–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Creekmore TD (1967) Inhibition or stimulation of the vertical growth of the facial complex, its significance to treatment. Angle Orthod 37:285–297

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Di Blasio A, Cassi D, Di Blasio C, Gandolfini M (2013) Temporomandibular joint dysfunction in Moebius syndrome. Eur J Paediatr Dent 14(4):295–298

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Di Blasio A, Mandelli G, Generali I, Gandolfini M (2009) Facial aesthetics and childhood. Eur J Paediatr Dent 10(3):131–134

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fastuca R, Meneghel M, Zecca PA, Mangano F, Antonello M, Nucera R, Caprioglio A (2015) Multimodal airway evaluation in growing patients after rapid maxillary expansion. Eur J Paediatr Dent 16(2):129–134

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fastuca R, Perinetti G, Zecca PA, Nucera R, Caprioglio A (2015) Airway compartments volume and oxygen saturation changes after rapid maxillary expansion: a longitudinal correlation study. Angle Orthod 85(6):955–961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fastuca R, Zecca PA, Caprioglio A (2014) Role of mandibular displacement and airway size in improving breathing after rapid maxillary expansion. Prog Orthod 15(1):40

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Fontana M, Cozzani M, Caprioglio A (2012) Non-compliance maxillary molar distalizing appliances: an overview of the last decade. Prog Orthod 13(2):173–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gautam P, Valiathan A, Adhikari R (2009) Craniofacial displacement in response to varying headgear forces evaluated biomechanically with finite element analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 135(4):507–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Giuliano Maino B, Pagin P, Di Blasio A (2012) Success of miniscrews used as anchorage for orthodontic treatment: analysis of different factors. Prog Orthod 13(3):202–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gkantidis N, Halazonetis DJ, Alexandropoulos E, Haralabakis NB (2011) Treatment strategies for patients with hyperdivergent Class II Division 1 malocclusion: is vertical dimension affected? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 140(3):346–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Godt A, Berneburg M, Kalwitzki M, Göz G (2008) Cephalometric analysis of molar and anterior tooth movement during cervical headgear treatment in relation to growth patterns. J Orofac Orthop 69(3):189–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Godt A, Kalwitzki M, Göz G (2007) Cervical headgear treatment and growth patterns: analysis by lateral cephalometry. J Orofac Orthop 68(1):38–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Haralabakis NB, Sifakakis IB (2004) The effect of cervical headgear on patients with high or low mandibular plane angles and the “myth” of posterior mandibular rotation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 126(3):310–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hubbard GW, Nanda RS, Currier GF (1994) A cephalometric evalua- tion of nonextraction cervical headgear treatment in Class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 64:359–370

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kloehn JS (1947) Guiding alveolar growth and eruption of teeth to reduce treatment time and produce a more balanced denture and face. Am J Orthod 17:10–33

    Google Scholar 

  28. Knight H (1988) The effects of three methods of orthodontic appliance therapy on some commonly used cephalometric variables. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 93:327–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuhn RJ (1968) Control of anterior vertical dimension and proper selection of extraoral anchorage. Angle Orthod 38:340–349

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Melsen B (1978) Effects of cervical anchorage during and after treatment: an implant study. Am J Orthod 73:526–540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Merrifield LL, Cross JJ (1970) Directional forces. Am J Orthod 57:435–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ricketts RM (1979) Ricketts on early treatment (part 2). J Clin Orthod 13:115–127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sandusky W (1965) Cephalometric evaluation of the effects of Kloehn type of cervical traction used as an auxiliary with the edgewise mechanism following Tweed’s principles for correction of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod 51:262–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schudy FF (1964) Vertical growth versus anteroposterior growth as related to function and treatment. Angle Orthod 34:75–93

    Google Scholar 

  35. Springate SD (2012) The effect of sample size and bias on the reliability of estimates of error: a comparative study of Dahlberg’s formula. Eur J Orthod 34:158–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Strajnić L, Stanisić-Sinobad D, Marković D, Stojanović L (2008) Cephalometric indicators of the vertical dimension of occlusion. Coll Antropol 32(2):535–541

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Toepel-Sievers C, Fischer-Brandies H (1999) Validity of the computerassisted cephalometric growth prognosis VTO (visual treatment objective) according to Ricketts. J Orofac Orthop 60:185–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ülger G, Arun T, Sayinsu K, Isik F (2006) The role of cervical headgear and lower utility arch in the control of the vertical dimension. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 130(4):492–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yamaguchi K, Nanda RS (1991) The effects of extraction and nonextraction treatment on the mandibular position. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 100:443–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zecca PA, Fastuca R, Beretta M, Caprioglio A, Macchi A (2016) Correlation assessment between three-dimensional facial soft tissue scan and lateral cephalometric radiography in orthodontic diagnosis. Int J Dent 1473918. doi:10.1155/2016/1473918

  41. Zervas ED, Galang-Boquiren MT, Obrez A, Costa Viana MG, Oppermann N, Sanchez F, Romero EG, Kusnoto B (2016) Change in the vertical dimension of Class II Division 1 patients after use of cervical or high-pull headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 150(5):771–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Private Practice, Catania, Italy

    Sergio Sambataro

  2. Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Rosamaria Fastuca (PhD Student)

  3. Department of Orthodontics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA

    Nelson J. Oppermann

  4. Private Practice, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

    Nelson J. Oppermann

  5. Resident, Orthodontic Program, Division of Orthodontics, Department of Surgical and Morphological Sciences, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy

    Paola Lorusso

  6. Division of Dentistry, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Tiziano Baccetti & Lorenzo Franchi (Assistant Professor)

  7. Division of Orthodontics, Department of Surgical and Morphological Sciences, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy

    Alberto Caprioglio (Associate Professor and Chairman)

  8. C/O Dental School, Via G. Piatti, 10, 21100, Velate, VA, Italy

    Rosamaria Fastuca (PhD Student)

Authors
  1. Sergio Sambataro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rosamaria Fastuca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nelson J. Oppermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paola Lorusso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tiziano Baccetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lorenzo Franchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alberto Caprioglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosamaria Fastuca.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

S. Sambataro, R. Fastuca, N. J. Oppermann, P. Lorusso, T. Baccetti, L. Franchi, A. Caprioglio 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

Tiziano Baccetti: Deceased.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sambataro, S., Fastuca, R., Oppermann, N.J. et al. Cephalometric changes in growing patients with increased vertical dimension treated with cervical headgear. J Orofac Orthop 78, 312–320 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0087-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0087-z

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation