Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment

Comparison with untreated class II subjects

Hakan Turkkahraman, M. Özgür Sayin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aims of this study were to determine whether the activator and activator headgear encourage mandibular growth, and whether there is any superiority of one appliance over the other or if the resultant changes are due to normal growth. Forty-nine skeletal Class II division 1 patients were selected. Thirty-three (13 females, 20 males; mean age 12.52 ± 1.42 years) were treated with an Andresen activator and the remaining 16 (7 females, 9 males; mean age 13.04 ± 1.47 years) with an activator headgear combination. Twenty Class II subjects (9 females, 11 males; mean age 12.57 ± 1.11 years) who had previously refused treatment served as a control group. Cephalometric landmarks were marked and digitized by one author to avoid inter-observer variability. Nine angular and 12 linear measurements were established and measured using Vistadent™ AT software. A paired-sample t-test and an ANOVA test were used to statistically evaluate the findings. The results revealed that both the activator and the activator headgear combination significantly (P < 0.001) encouraged mandibular growth, but had little restraining effect on the maxilla. The mandibular incisors were more controlled in the activator headgear combination group. The resultant skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue changes differed significantly from those due to growth.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)27-34
Number of pages8
JournalEuropean Journal of Orthodontics
Volume28
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Growth
Cephalometry
Observer Variation
Maxilla
Incisor
Therapeutics
Analysis of Variance
Software
Control Groups

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthodontics

Cite this

Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment : Comparison with untreated class II subjects. / Turkkahraman, Hakan; Sayin, M. Özgür.

In: European Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 28, No. 1, 01.02.2006, p. 27-34.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f159d8bf5cb84a0a8fe381853cba021d,
title = "Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: Comparison with untreated class II subjects",
abstract = "The aims of this study were to determine whether the activator and activator headgear encourage mandibular growth, and whether there is any superiority of one appliance over the other or if the resultant changes are due to normal growth. Forty-nine skeletal Class II division 1 patients were selected. Thirty-three (13 females, 20 males; mean age 12.52 ± 1.42 years) were treated with an Andresen activator and the remaining 16 (7 females, 9 males; mean age 13.04 ± 1.47 years) with an activator headgear combination. Twenty Class II subjects (9 females, 11 males; mean age 12.57 ± 1.11 years) who had previously refused treatment served as a control group. Cephalometric landmarks were marked and digitized by one author to avoid inter-observer variability. Nine angular and 12 linear measurements were established and measured using Vistadent™ AT software. A paired-sample t-test and an ANOVA test were used to statistically evaluate the findings. The results revealed that both the activator and the activator headgear combination significantly (P < 0.001) encouraged mandibular growth, but had little restraining effect on the maxilla. The mandibular incisors were more controlled in the activator headgear combination group. The resultant skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue changes differed significantly from those due to growth.",
author = "Hakan Turkkahraman and Sayin, {M. {\"O}zg{\"u}r}",
year = "2006",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/ejo/cji062",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "27--34",
journal = "European Journal of Orthodontics",
issn = "0141-5387",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment

T2 - Comparison with untreated class II subjects

AU - Turkkahraman, Hakan

AU - Sayin, M. Özgür

PY - 2006/2/1

Y1 - 2006/2/1

N2 - The aims of this study were to determine whether the activator and activator headgear encourage mandibular growth, and whether there is any superiority of one appliance over the other or if the resultant changes are due to normal growth. Forty-nine skeletal Class II division 1 patients were selected. Thirty-three (13 females, 20 males; mean age 12.52 ± 1.42 years) were treated with an Andresen activator and the remaining 16 (7 females, 9 males; mean age 13.04 ± 1.47 years) with an activator headgear combination. Twenty Class II subjects (9 females, 11 males; mean age 12.57 ± 1.11 years) who had previously refused treatment served as a control group. Cephalometric landmarks were marked and digitized by one author to avoid inter-observer variability. Nine angular and 12 linear measurements were established and measured using Vistadent™ AT software. A paired-sample t-test and an ANOVA test were used to statistically evaluate the findings. The results revealed that both the activator and the activator headgear combination significantly (P < 0.001) encouraged mandibular growth, but had little restraining effect on the maxilla. The mandibular incisors were more controlled in the activator headgear combination group. The resultant skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue changes differed significantly from those due to growth.

AB - The aims of this study were to determine whether the activator and activator headgear encourage mandibular growth, and whether there is any superiority of one appliance over the other or if the resultant changes are due to normal growth. Forty-nine skeletal Class II division 1 patients were selected. Thirty-three (13 females, 20 males; mean age 12.52 ± 1.42 years) were treated with an Andresen activator and the remaining 16 (7 females, 9 males; mean age 13.04 ± 1.47 years) with an activator headgear combination. Twenty Class II subjects (9 females, 11 males; mean age 12.57 ± 1.11 years) who had previously refused treatment served as a control group. Cephalometric landmarks were marked and digitized by one author to avoid inter-observer variability. Nine angular and 12 linear measurements were established and measured using Vistadent™ AT software. A paired-sample t-test and an ANOVA test were used to statistically evaluate the findings. The results revealed that both the activator and the activator headgear combination significantly (P < 0.001) encouraged mandibular growth, but had little restraining effect on the maxilla. The mandibular incisors were more controlled in the activator headgear combination group. The resultant skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue changes differed significantly from those due to growth.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=31744449121&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=31744449121&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ejo/cji062

DO - 10.1093/ejo/cji062

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 27

EP - 34

JO - European Journal of Orthodontics

JF - European Journal of Orthodontics

SN - 0141-5387

IS - 1

ER -