English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The purpose of this investigation was to comparatively evaluate the cephalometric changes in soft and hard tissues related to treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusion with activator-headgear and Bionator appliances. Twenty-four individuals formed the activator-headgear group and twenty-five comprised the Bionator group, while other twenty-four presenting the same malocclusion did not receive any intervention and served as controls. Lateral headfilms were taken at the beginning and at the end of the observation period and were digitized with computerized cephalometrics; cephalometric analysis was performed and the results were submitted to statistical test. According to the methodology employed, our findings suggested that both appliances do not significantly alter the growth path, and also they were not able to modify the posterior inferior height and the sagittal and vertical position of the upper lip. The lower lip and the soft menton were only slightly modified by the orthopedic appliances, but the mentolabial sulcus showed a significant decrease in deepness compared to the control group. Of statistical significance, only the anterior inferior hard and soft facial heights and the lower lip height increased more in the treated groups.

journal of applied oral science

Influence of orthopedic treatment on hard and soft facial structures of individuals presenting with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion: a comparative study