Clarifying the mechanism of effect of the Bionator for treatment of maxillary protrusion: A percentile growth study.

AIM The reported effects of Bionator treatment in patients with mandibular retrognathism are conflicting. This study evaluated the changes in craniofacial morphology resulting from treatment with a Bionator, based on measurement percentiles previously reported, to clarify the mechanism of the effect of this commonly used functional device. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study Design: Retrospective. SETTING A private orthodontic clinic. PARTICIPANTS Forty-two children (mean age, 10.13 years) requiring treatment with a Bionator for Class II malocclusion (mandibular retrognathism). Children were randomly assigned to a Bionator group with or without an expansion screw. Measurements on lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before and upon completion of Bionator treatment. All parameters measured were characterised according to the measurement percentiles previously reported. Each parameter was compared before and after treatment for all patients and for each treatment group using Wilcoxon's test. RESULTS No significant differences in cranial length or mandibular body length were seen in any of the 3 groups, but anterior cranial base length and maxillary length were significantly decreased while mandibular ramus height and mandibular length were significantly increased after treatment in the Bionator with expansion screw group and in the all-patient group. CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest that treatment with a Bionator with expansion screw during the growth and development stage results in increased mandible length and ramus height and inhibits the growth of the maxilla and anterior cranial base bone.

[1]  R. R. Almeida-Pedrin,et al.  Treatment effects of headgear biteplane and bionator appliances. , 2007, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[2]  Hari Parkash,et al.  Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[3]  M. O. Sayin,et al.  Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects. , 2006, European journal of orthodontics.

[4]  T. Uysal,et al.  Dental and alveolar arch widths in normal occlusion, class II division 1 and class II division 2. , 2005, The Angle orthodontist.

[5]  P. Buschang,et al.  Adaptive condylar growth and mandibular remodelling changes with bionator therapy--an implant study. , 2004, European journal of orthodontics.

[6]  P. Cozza,et al.  Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes during activator therapy. , 2004, European journal of orthodontics.

[7]  J. Henriques,et al.  Treatment effects produced by the Bionator appliance. Comparison with an untreated Class II sample. , 2004, European journal of orthodontics.

[8]  Jean Y Chen,et al.  Analysis of efficacy of functional appliances on mandibular growth. , 2002, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[9]  J. Henriques,et al.  Comparative study of the Fränkel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. , 2002, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[10]  H. Pancherz,et al.  Effective condylar growth and chin position changes in activator treatment: a cephalometric roentgenographic study. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[11]  V. Kalra,et al.  Changes in soft tissue profile following treatment with the bionator. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[12]  C. Nelson,et al.  Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment. , 1993, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[13]  S. Jakobsson,et al.  The influence of activator treatment on skeletal growth in Angle Class II: 1 cases. A roentgenocephalometric study. , 1990, European journal of orthodontics.

[14]  Y. Miyagawa [The effects of somatic growth and changes in the occlusal system on mandibular growth]. , 1988, Nihon Kyosei Shika Gakkai zasshi = The journal of Japan Orthodontic Society.

[15]  F. A. Bryan,et al.  Long-term mandibular adaptations to protrusive function: an experimental study in Macaca mulatta. , 1987, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[16]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Skeletal and dental changes following functional regulator therapy on class II patients. , 1985, American journal of orthodontics.

[17]  F. J. Calvert An Assessment of Andresen Therapy on Class II Division 1 Malocclusion , 1982, British journal of orthodontics.

[18]  H. Luder Skeletal profile changes related to two patterns of activator effects. , 1982, American journal of orthodontics.

[19]  J A McNamara,et al.  Components of class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[20]  R. W. Reey,et al.  The passive activator: case selection, treatment response, and corrective mechanics. , 1978, American journal of orthodontics.

[21]  Binder Re Removable orthodontic appliances in general practice. , 1972 .

[22]  K. Vargervik,et al.  Morphogenetic response to activator treatment. , 1971, American journal of orthodontics.