Literaturübersicht: Funktionskieferorthopädische Geräte und die Stimulation des Unterkieferwachstums[*]

Zusammenfassung:

Die Beeinflussung des Unterkieferwachstums durch funktionskieferorthopädische Geräte wird immer noch kontrovers diskutiert. Die meisten Arbeiten, die über positive Effekte von FKO-Apparaturen berichten, zeichnen sich durch eine mangelhafte wissenschaftliche Methodik aus. Daher sollte die Wirksamkeit der FKO-Geräte in erster Linie im Rahmen prospektiver randomisierter klinischer Studien überprüft werden. Nach bisherigem Kenntnisstand kann nicht davon ausgegangen werden, dass funktionskieferorthopädische Apparaturen das Unterkieferwachstum stimulieren und steigern können. Gelegentlich beobachtete positive Wachstumseffekte sind in aller Regel nicht substanziell und sind nicht stabil über einen längeren Zeitraum.

Summary

The mode of action of functional appliances, particularly in relation to stimulating mandibular growth, is a controversial subject. Many of the reports concerning growth effects of functional appliances have been characterized by poor methodology. In assessing functional appliances, results from prospective randomized clinical trials should be given prominence. On the basis of available evidence, it cannot be concluded that functional appliances are effective in stimulating and increasing mandibular growth in the long term. Although favourable growth changes have been reported following phase 1 therapy, they are generally not substantial and long term stability appears to be poor.

Schlüsselwörter:

Klasse-II-Behandlung - Funktionskieferorthopädie - FKO-Gerät - Unterkieferwachstum

Key words:

Class II treatment - dentofacial orthopaedics - functional appliance - mandibular growth

1 * Mit freundlicher Genehmigung der Universität von Adelaide. Original erschienen im Australian Dental Journal 2000; 45: 173-178

Literatur

• 1 Ngan P W, Byczek E, Scheick J. Longitudinal evaluation of growth changes in Class II division 1 subjects.  Semin Orthod. 1997;  3(4) 222-231
• 2 Tulloch J F, Medland W, Tuncay O C. Methods used to evaluate growth modification in Class II malocclusion.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;  98(4) 340-347
• 3 Nies A S, Spielberg S P. Principles of therapeutics. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, Molinoff PB, Ruddon RW, Gilman AG (eds). Goodman and Gilman's the pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 9th edn McGraw-Hill, New York 1996: 43-62
• 4 Sackett D L. On identifying the best therapy. In: Trottman C-A, McNamara JA jr (eds). Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 30 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1995: 7-19
• 5 Johnston L E. Growing jaws for fun and profit: A modest proposal. In: McNamara JA jr (ed). Growth modification: What works, what doesn't, and why. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 25 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1999: 63-86
• 6 Sackett D L. The science of the art of clinical management. In: Vig PS, Ribbens KA (eds). Science and clinical judgement in orthodontics. Craniofacial growth series, Monograph 19 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1986: 237-251
• 7 Sackett D L. Nine years later: A commentary on revisiting the Moyers symposium. In: Trotman C-A, McNamara JA jr (eds). Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 30 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1995: 1-5
• 8 Johnston L E. Clinical studies in orthodontics: Taking the low road to Scotland. In: Trotman C-A, McNamara JA jr (eds). Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 30 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1995: 21-41
• 9 Vig W L, Bennett M E, O'Brien K, Vayda D, Vig P S, Weyant R J. Orthodontic process and outcome: Efficacy and effectiveness studies. In: Trotman C-A, McNamara JA jr (eds). Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 30 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1995: 227-254
• 10 McNamara J A. Neuromuscular and skeletal adaptations to altered function in the orofacial region.  Am J Orthod. 1973;  64(6) 578-606
• 11 McNamara J A. The role of functional appliances in contemporary orthodontics. In: Johnston LE jr (ed). New vistas in orthodontics Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia 1985: 38-75
• 12 McNamara J A. On the possibilities of stimulating mandibular growth. In: Graber LW (ed). Orthodontics: State of the art, essence of the science Mosby, St Louis 1986
• 13 Petrovic A G, Stutzmann J J, Lavergne J M. Mechanisms of craniofacial growth and modus operandi of functional appliances: A cell-level and cybernetic approach to orthodontic decision making. In: Carlson DS (ed). Craniofacial growth theory and orthodontic treatment: Craniofacial growth series, Monograph 23 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1990: 13-74
• 14 Johnston L E. Functional appliances: a mortgage on mandibular position.  Aust Orthod J. 1996;  14(3) 154-157
• 15 Derringer K. A cephalometric study to compare the effects of cervical traction and Andresen therapy in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion. Part 1 - Skeletal changes.  Br J Orthod. 1990;  17(1) 33-46
• 16 Fidler B C, Artun J, Joondeph D R, Little R M. Long-term stability of Angle Class II, division 1 malocclusions with successful occlusal results at end of active treatment.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;  107(3) 276-285
• 17 Lange D W, Kalra V, Broadbent B H, Powers M, Nelson S. Changes in soft tissue profile following treatment with the Bionator.  Angle Orthod. 1995;  65(6) 423-430
• 18 DeVincenzo J P. Changes in mandibular lenght before, during, and after successful orthopedic correction of Class II malocclusions, using a functional appliance.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;  99(3) 241-257
• 19 Mamandras A H, Allen L P. Mandibular response to orthodontic treatment with the Bionator appliance.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;  97(2) 113-120
• 20 Erverdi N, Özkan G. A cephalometric investigation of effects of the Elastic Bite-block in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions.  Eur J Orthod. 1995;  17(5) 375-384
• 21 Ghafari J, Shofer F S, Jacobsson-Hunt U, Markowitz D L, Laster L L. Headgear versus function regulator in the early treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;  113(1) 51-61
• 22 McNamara J A, Bookstein F L, Shaughnessy T G. Skeletal and dental changes following functional regulator therapy on Class II patients.  Am J Orthod. 1985;  88(2) 91-110
• 23 McNamara J A, Howe R P, Dischinger T G. A comparison of the Herbst and Fränkel appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;  98(2) 134-144
• 24 McNamara J A, Peterson J E, Alexander R G. Three dimensional diagnosis and management of Class II malocclusion in the mixed dentition.  Semin Orthod. 1996;  2(2) 114-137
• 25 Perillo L, Johnston L E, Ferro A. Permanence of skeletal changes after function regulator (FR-2) treatment of patients with retrusive Class II malocclusions.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;  109(2) 132-139
• 26 Righellis E G. Treatment effects of Fränkel, activator and extraoral traction appliances.  Angle Orthod. 1983;  53(2) 107-121
• 27 Weiland F J, Ingervall B, Bantleon H-P, Droschl H. Initial effects of treatment of Class II malocclusion with the Herren activator, activator-headgear combination, and Jasper Jumper.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;  112(1) 19-27
• 28 Bishara S E, Ziaja R R. Functional appliances: a review.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;  95(3) 250-258
• 29 Tuncay O C, Tulloch J F. Apparatus criticus: methods used to evaluate growth modification in Class II malocclusion.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992;  102(6) 531-536
• 30 Jakobsson S O. Cephalometric evaluation of treatment effect on Class II, division 1 malocclusions.  Am J Orthod. 1967;  53(6) 446-457
• 31 Drage K J, Hunt N P. Overjet relapse following functional appliance therapy.  Br J Orthod. 1990;  17(3) 205-213
• 32 Creekmore T D, Radney L J. Fränkel appliance therapy: orthopedic or orthodontic?.  Am J Orthod. 1983;  83(2) 89-108
• 33 Nelson C, Harkness M, Herbison P. Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;  104(2) 153-161
• 34 Robertson N R. An examination of treatment changes in children treated with the function regulatur of Fränkel.  Am J Orthod. 1983;  83(4) 299-310
• 35 Rudzki-Janson I, Noachtar R. Functional appliance therapy with the Bionator.  Semin Orthod. 1998;  4(1) 33-45
• 36 Wieslander L, Largerström L. The effect of activator treatment on Class II malocclusions.  Am J Orthod. 1979;  75(1) 20-26
• 37 Pancherz H. Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric investigation.  Am J Orthod. 1979;  76(4) 423-442
• 38 Lai M, McNamara J A. An evaluation of two-phase treatment with the Herbst appliance and preadjusted edgewise therapy.  Semin Orthod. 1998;  4(1) 46-58
• 39 Hansen K, Pancherz H, Hägg U. Long-term effects of the Herbst appliance in relation to the treatment growth period: a cephalometric study.  Eur J Orthod. 1991;  13(6) 471-481
• 40 Pancherz H. The nature of Class II relapse after Herbst appliance treatment: a cephalometric long-term investigation.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;  100(3) 220-233
• 41 Pancherz H. The effects, limitations, and long-term dentofacial adaptations to treatment with the Herbst appliance.  Semin Orthod. 1997;  3(4) 232-243
• 42 Pancherz H, Fackel U. The skeletofacial growth pattern pre- and post-dentofacial orthopaedics. A long-term study of Class II malocclusions treated with the Herbst appliance.  Eur J Orthod. 1990;  12(2) 209-218
• 43 Wieslander L. Long-term effect of treatment with the headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Stability or relapse?.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;  104(4) 319-329
• 44 Mills C M, McCulloch K J. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;  114(1) 15-24
• 45 Lund D I, Sandler P J. The effects of twin blocks: a prospective controlled study.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;  113(1) 104-110
• 46 Illing H M, Morris D O, Lee R T. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I - the hard tissues.  Eur J Orthod. 1998;  20(5) 501-516
• 47 Keeling S D, King G J, Wheeler T T, McGorray S. Timing of Class II treatment: Rationale, methods and early results of an ongoing randomized clinical trial. In: Trotman C-A, McNamara JA jr (eds). Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 30 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1995: 81-112
• 48 Keeling S D, Wheeler T T, King G J, Garvan C W, Cohen D A, Cabassa S, McGorray S P, Taylor M G. Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with Bionators and headgear.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;  113(1) 40-50
• 49 Tulloch J F, Phillips C, Proffit W. Early vs late treatment of Class II malocclusion: Preliminary results from the UNC clinical trial. In: Trotman C-A, McNamara JA jr (eds). Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial growth series, vol. 30 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1995: 113-138
• 50 Tulloch J F, Phillips C, Proffit W R. Benefit of early Class II treatment: progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;  113(1) 62-72
• 51 Tulloch J F, Proffit W R, Phillips C. Influences on the outcome of early treatment for Class II malocclusion.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;  111(5) 533-542
• 52 Tulloch J F, Phillips C, Koch G, Proffit W R. The effect of early intervention on skeletal pattern in Class II malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;  111(4) 391-400
• 53 Adenwalla S T, Kronman J H. Class II, division 1 treatment with Fränkel and edgewise appliances. a comparative study of mandibular growth and facial esthetics.  Angle Orthod. 1985;  55(4) 281-298
• 54 Gianelly A A, Arena S A, Bernstein L. A comparison of Class II treatment changes noted with the light wire, edgewise and Fränkel appliances.  Am J Orthod. 1984;  86(4) 269-276
• 55 Johnston L E. A comparative analysis of Class II treatments. In: Vig PS, Ribbens KA (eds) Science and clinical judgement in orthodontics. Craniofacial growth series, Monograph 19 The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1986: 103-148
• 56 Livieratos F A, Johnston L E. A comparison of one-stage and two-stage nonextraction alternatives in matched Class II samples.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;  108(2) 118-131
• 57 Bondevik O. Treatment needs following activator-headgear therapy.  Angle Orthod. 1995;  65(6) 417-422
• 58 O'Brien K D, Robbins R, Vig K W, Vig P S, Shnorhokian H, Weyant R. The effectiveness of Class II, division 1 treatment.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;  107(3) 329-334

1 * Mit freundlicher Genehmigung der Universität von Adelaide. Original erschienen im Australian Dental Journal 2000; 45: 173-178