Cephalometric evaluation of the effect of dynamax and monoblock appliances on vertical facial height in patients with distal malocclusion

Novruzov Z.G.; Alieva R.K.; Ozdiler O.E.

doi:https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat201897344

Novruzov Z.G.

Azerbaijan Medical University, Baku, Azerbaijan

Alieva R.K.

Azerbaijan Medical University, Baku, Azerbaijan

Ozdiler O.E.

Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

Cephalometric evaluation of the effect of dynamax and monoblock appliances on vertical facial height in patients with distal malocclusion

Authors:

Novruzov Z.G., Alieva R.K., Ozdiler O.E.

More about the authors

Journal: Stomatology. 2018;97(3): 44‑47

DOI: 10.17116/stomat201897344

Read: 830 times

Download PDF (RU)

Contact the author

Table of contents

To cite this article:

Novruzov ZG, Alieva RK, Ozdiler OE. Cephalometric evaluation of the effect of dynamax and monoblock appliances on vertical facial height in patients with distal malocclusion. Stomatology. 2018;97(3):44‑47. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat201897344

Подписка 2026 Стоматология (Stomatology)

Использование инфографики авторами научных работ

Close metadata

Abstract:

The most common abnormality in orthodontics is distal malocclusion. The patient will benefit more if is treated during active growth phase. Various types of functional appliances are used in order to control maxillary and mandibular growth. In this article we compared vertical changes in mandibular position as a result of 3 different distal malocclusion treatment methods. To this end, groups consisting of, 17 patients treated with dynamax appliance, 17 patients treated with Monoblock appliance, 16 patients treated with a Monoblock-Headgear combination were created. Research has shown that, treatment with removable functional appliances results in parallel downward positioning of mandible; treatment with semiremovable appliances results in backward and downward rotation of mandible and that the extraoral appliances are useless to control the lower facial height.

Keywords:

distal malocclusion

dynamax appliance

monoblock appliance

Authors:

Novruzov Z.G.

Azerbaijan Medical University, Baku, Azerbaijan

Alieva R.K.

Azerbaijan Medical University, Baku, Azerbaijan

Ozdiler O.E.

Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

Close metadata

References:

Afanas'eva OE, Arsenina OI, Pogabalo IV, Popova NV. Otsenka sostoyaniya elementov zubochelyustnogo kompleksa pri lechenii distal'noi okklyuzii zubnykh ryadov nes"emnymi lingval'nymi apparatami, proiskhodyashchikh v vertikal'noi ploskosti. Rossiiskaya stomatologiya. 2016;9(4):43-47.
Persin LS. Ortodontiya. Uchebnik. 2016.
Khoroshilkina FYa, Malygin YuM, Persin LS. Ortodontiya. Lechenie zubochelyustno-litsevykh anomalii po metodu Frenkelya. 2011;104.
Bock N, Pancherz H. Herbst treatment of class II division 1 malocclusions in retrognathic and prognathic facial types. A cephalometric long-term retrospective study. Angle Orthod. 2006;76:930-941.
Flores-Mir C, Major PW. A systematic review of cephalometric facial soft tissue changes with the Activator and Bionator appliances in class II division 1 subjects. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2006;28:586-593.
Franchi L, Alvetro L, Giuntini V, Masucci C, Defraia E, Baccetti T. Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the forsus fatigue resistant device in class II patients. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81:678-683.
Feres MFN, Raza H, Alhadlaq A, El-Bialy T. Rapid maxillary expansion effects in Class II malocclusion: A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2015;85:1070-1079.
Singh GD, Clark WJ. Soft tissue changes in patients with Class II division 1 malocclusions treated using Twin Block appliances: finite-element scaling analysis. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2003;25:225-230.
Servello DF, Fallis DW, Alvetro L. Analysis of Class II patients, successfully treated with the straight-wire and Forsus appliances, based on cervical vertebral maturation status. Angle Orthod. 2015;85:80-86.
Qarayev Zİ, Əliyeva RQ, Novruzov ZH. Ortodontiya. Bakı. 2015.
McNamara JA. On the FrÃ¤nkel appliance. Part 1. Biological basis and appliance design. J Clin Orthod. 1982;16:320-337.
Jean Y, Leslie CAW, Richard N. Analyzis of efficacy of functional appliances on mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2002;122:470-476.
Dimond HD Jr. The application of the Moss theory of the functional matrix to the use of the functional appliance. JNJ Dent Assoc. 1982;53(4):35-36, 53, 55-57.