Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 4, 2026
Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
Published on: February 23, 2024
Differential skeletal and dental effects after orthodontic treatment with bite jumping appliance or activator: a
Jan Hourfar1, Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger2,3, Luisa Euchner4
1Department of Orthodontics, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, Germany. hourfar@t-online.de.
Objectives:
The aim of this retrospective cephalometric study was to compare treatment outcomes with "bite jumping appliance" (BJA) or Andresen-Häupl type activator. It especially focused on skeletal and dental structures in patients with class II malocclusion. The study hypothesis was that differences in treatment-related changes would occur between patients treated with BJA or activator.
Material And Methods:
Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of 73 patients with a class II malocclusion were analyzed. Thirty-seven patients (22 females, 15 males) received treatment with a BJA (pretreatment age 11.1 ± 1.07 years) and 36 patients (20 females, 16 males) with an activator (pretreatment age 11.3 ± 1.12 years). Treatment time was 14.0 ± 1.8 months with BJA and 12.0 ± 2.0 months with activator. Paired t tests were used for intragroup and t tests for independent samples for intergroup comparisons. Results were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05.
Results:
The comparison of sagittal and vertical skeletal changes after BJA and activator treatment did not reveal significant differences. Significant changes occurred for lower incisor inclination (P = 0.0367) and overjet (P = 0.0125) only. The reduction of overjet and proclination of lower incisors were more pronounced in BJA patients.
Conclusions:
Both "bite jumping appliance" (BJA) and Andresen-Häupl type activator were able to improve the occlusion of patients with a class II malocclusion. Dental effects were more pronounced for the BJA.
Clinical Relevance:
Marked lower incisor proclination contributed significantly to overjet correction in BJA patients. This ought to be respected when choosing a removable functional appliance for patients whose lower incisors are already proclined prior to treatment.
