Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Activator versus cervical headgear: superimpositional cephalometric comparison.

N B Haralabakis1, D J Halazonetis, I B Sifakakis

  • 1School of Dentistry, University of Athens, Greece. nbhara@hol.gr

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics
|March 15, 2003
PubMed
Summary

Activator and cervical headgear treatments show similar overall Class II correction, but differ in specific tooth and jaw movements. This study used advanced cephalometrics to reveal these distinct mechanisms for orthodontic treatment.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Novel software for quantitative evaluation and graphical representation of masticatory efficiency.

Journal of oral rehabilitation·2013
Same author

Geometric morphometric analysis of craniofacial variation, ontogeny and modularity in a cross-sectional sample of modern humans.

Journal of anatomy·2013
Same author

Pharmacological management of pain during orthodontic treatment: a meta-analysis.

Orthodontics & craniofacial research·2012
Same author

Fluctuating molar asymmetry in relation to environmental radioactivity.

Archives of oral biology·2009
Same author

A cephalometric morphometric study of the sella turcica.

European journal of orthodontics·2007
Same author

Guidelines for preparing and submitting images for publication.

American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics·2001

Area of Science:

  • Orthodontics
  • Craniofacial Growth and Development
  • Dental Biomaterials

Background:

  • Clinical trials indicate comparable effectiveness between activator and headgear treatments for Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
  • Uncertainty persists regarding the precise mechanisms of correction, potentially due to limitations of conventional cephalometric analysis.
  • Conventional methods may obscure nuanced differences in vertical, horizontal, skeletal, dental, and rotational effects.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the treatment effects of activator and cervical headgear appliances using a superimpositional cephalometric method.
  • To differentiate between vertical and horizontal effects, as well as skeletal, dental, and rotational outcomes.
  • To elucidate the distinct mechanisms of correction offered by each orthodontic appliance.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Methods:

  • Retrospective investigation of Class II Division 1 patients treated without extraction.
  • Two groups: modified activator (n=22) and cervical headgear with fixed edgewise appliances (n=30).
  • Evaluation using conventional and regional superimpositional cephalometric analysis of lateral radiographs.

Main Results:

  • Conventional analysis showed a reduced SNA angle in the headgear group; minimal changes in FMA and GoGn-SN for both groups.
  • Superimposition revealed differential molar movement: maxillary molars moved posteriorly/inferiorly with headgear; mandibular molars moved occlusally with activator.
  • Activator group showed approximately 1 mm greater anterior mandibular advancement compared to the headgear group.

Conclusions:

  • Overall Class II correction is clinically comparable between activator and cervical headgear treatments.
  • Distinct mechanisms of action are evident, with specific differences in molar and mandibular skeletal movements.
  • Superimpositional cephalometrics provides a more detailed understanding of appliance-specific effects in orthodontic correction.