Effects of Force Magnitude on Dental Arches in Cervical Headgear Therapy

Overview

Journal Eur J Orthod

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2021 Aug 9

PMID 34369566

Citations 1

Authors

Tuula Talvitie

Mika Helminen

Susanna Karsila

Pertti Pirttiniemi

Luca Signorelli

Reeta Varho

Timo Peltomaki

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: To study the influence of different force magnitudes on dental arches in cervical headgear (CHG) treatment.

Material And Methods: In this controlled clinical trial, patients (n = 40) were treated with CHG with light (L, 300 g, n = 22) or heavy force (H, 500 g, n = 18) magnitude. Subjects were asked to use CHG for 10 hours a day for 10 months. The outer bow of the CHG facebow was raised 10-20 degrees and the inner bow expanded 3-4 mm. Adherence to instructions and force magnitude were monitored with an electronic module (Smartgear, Swissorthodontics, Switzerland). Impressions for study models were taken before (T1) and after (T2) treatment and the study models were scanned into digital form (3Shape, R700 Scanner, Denmark). Measurements were made using the digital models (Planmeca Romexis, Model analyser, Finland).

Results: During the treatment (T1-T2) the upper inter-canine distance increased by 2.83 mm (P = 0.000) and 2.60 mm (P = 0.000) in the L and H force magnitude groups, respectively. Upper inter-molar width increased by 3.16 mm (P = 0.000) and 2.50 mm (P = 0.000) in the L and H groups, respectively. Maxillary total arch perimeter increased by 6.39 mm (P = 0.001) and 6.68 mm (P = 0.001) in the L and H groups, respectively. In the amount of change over time, T1-T2, in the upper arch measurements, no significant difference was found between the groups. Lower inter-canine width increased by 0.94 mm (P = 0.005) and 1.16 mm (P = 0.000) in the L and H groups, respectively; no difference between the groups. Lower inter-molar distance increased by 2.17 mm (P = 0.000) and 1.11 mm (P = 0.008) in the L and H groups, respectively. At the end of the study, upper and lower inter-molar width was larger in the L group than in the H group (P = 0.039 and P = 0.022, respectively).

Conclusion: CHG therapy is an effective method for expanding and releasing moderate crowding of the upper dental arch. The lower arch spontaneously follows the upper arch in widening effects, and minor expansion can also be seen on the lower arch. In the L group, larger inter-molar width was achieved on the upper and lower arch; probably due to better adherence to instructions. Light force is recommended for use in CHG therapy.

Citing Articles

Effects of headgear timing on dental arch changes from 7 to 18 years of age: a follow-up study.

Hannula M, Tolvanen M, Pirttiniemi P, Pirila-Parkkinen K, Julku J Eur J Orthod. 2023; 45(5):496-504.

PMID: 37607275 PMC: 10505689. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjad045.

References

Julku J, Hannula M, Pirila-Parkkinen K, Tolvanen M, Pirttiniemi P . Dental arch effects after early and later timed cervical headgear treatment-a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2019; 41(6):622-630. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjy083. View

Bowden D . Theoretical considerations of headgear therapy: a literature review. 1. Mechanical principles. Br J Orthod. 1978; 5(3):145-52. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.5.3.145. View

Doruk C, Agar U, Babacan H . The role of the headgear timer in extraoral co-operation. Eur J Orthod. 2004; 26(3):289-91. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/26.3.289. View

Kang S, Kim H, Hwang H, Lee K . Immediate changes in the mandibular dentition after maxillary molar distalization using headgear. Korean J Orthod. 2017; 47(2):142-147. PMC: 5359632. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.2.142. View

Sanin C, SAVARA B . Factors that affect the alignment of the mandibular incisors: a longitudinal study. Am J Orthod. 1973; 64(3):248-57. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(73)90018-3. View

Farret M, de Lima E, Pereira Araujo V, Rizzatto S, Menezes L, Grossi M . Molar changes with cervical headgear alone or in combination with rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(5):847-51. DOI: 10.2319/080207-360.1. View

Freitas M, Lima D, Freitas K, Janson G, Henriques J . Cephalometric evaluation of Class II malocclusion treatment with cervical headgear and mandibular fixed appliances. Eur J Orthod. 2008; 30(5):477-82. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn039. View

Lux C, Conradt C, Burden D, Komposch G . Dental arch widths and mandibular-maxillary base widths in Class II malocclusions between early mixed and permanent dentitions. Angle Orthod. 2004; 73(6):674-85. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2003)073<0674:DAWAMB>2.0.CO;2. View

GIANELLY A . Leeway space and the resolution of crowding in the mixed dentition. Semin Orthod. 1995; 1(3):188-94. DOI: 10.1016/s1073-8746(95)80022-0. View

10.

Varrela J . Early developmental traits in class II malocclusion. Acta Odontol Scand. 1999; 56(6):375-7. DOI: 10.1080/000163598428356. View

11.

Keski-Nisula K, Lehto R, Lusa V, Keski-Nisula L, Varrela J . Occurrence of malocclusion and need of orthodontic treatment in early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124(6):631-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.02.001. View

12.

Sayin M, Turkkahraman H . Comparison of dental arch and alveolar widths of patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion and subjects with Class I ideal occlusion. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74(3):356-60. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0356:CODAAA>2.0.CO;2. View

13.

Julku J, Pirila-Parkkinen K, Tolvanen M, Pirttiniemi P . Comparison of effects of cervical headgear treatment on skeletal facial changes when the treatment time is altered: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2019; 41(6):631-640. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjz053. View

14.

Talvitie T, Helminen M, Karsila S, Varho R, Signorelli L, Pirttiniemi P . Impact of force magnitude on effectiveness in cervical headgear therapy: a cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2019; 41(6):646-651. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjz022. View

15.

Tausche E, Luck O, Harzer W . Prevalence of malocclusions in the early mixed dentition and orthodontic treatment need. Eur J Orthod. 2004; 26(3):237-44. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/26.3.237. View

16.

You Z, FISHMAN L, Rosenblum R, SUBTELNY J . Dentoalveolar changes related to mandibular forward growth in untreated Class II persons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 120(6):598-607; quiz 676. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2001.119801. View

17.

Tufekci E, Allen S, Best A, Lindauer S . Current trends in headgear use for the treatment of Class II malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2015; 86(4):584-9. PMC: 8601498. DOI: 10.2319/041315-242.1. View

18.

Agar U, Doruk C, Bicakci A, Bukusoglu N . The role of psycho-social factors in headgear compliance. Eur J Orthod. 2005; 27(3):263-7. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cji001. View

19.

Talvitie T, Helminen M, Karsila S, Varho R, Signorelli L, Pirttiniemi P . The impact of force magnitude on the first and second maxillary molars in cervical headgear therapy. Eur J Orthod. 2021; 43(6):648-657. PMC: 10084717. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjab010. View

20.

Sambataro S, Fastuca R, Oppermann N, Lorusso P, Baccetti T, Franchi L . Cephalometric changes in growing patients with increased vertical dimension treated with cervical headgear. J Orofac Orthop. 2017; 78(4):312-320. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-017-0087-z. View