Ethically Accepted With Code 851/2971 A Comparison of Class Ⅱ Malocclusion Treatment Using Van Beek-headgear Activator Versus Andresen Activator
Study Details
Study Description
Brief Summary
The aim of this study is to compare the treatment results when treating Class II division 1 malocclusion using the Van Beek-Headgear Activator combination (vBHGA) appliance versus using the Andresen activator.
Condition or Disease | Intervention/Treatment | Phase |
---|---|---|
|
N/A |
Study Design
Arms and Interventions
Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
---|---|
Active Comparator: Group A 12 patients will receive Van-Beek activator and a headgear |
Device: Van-Beek activator and a headgear
12 patients will receive Van-Beek activator and a headgear
|
Active Comparator: Group B 12 patients will receive Andresen activator |
Device: Andresen activator
12 patients will receive Andresen activator.
|
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
- treating Class II division 1 malocclusion [at 8 months]
rate of mandibular and maxillary growth
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
-
Class II division 1 indicated by ANB angle value ≥ 4º
-
Class II division 1 with overjet > 5mm.
-
An age range between 8 and 13 years growing patient using cervical vertebral stage assessment (CVS).
-
No previous orthodontic treatment
-
No indications or symptoms of periodontal disease in the past or present, as determined by clinical and radiographic examination
Exclusion Criteria:
-
Missing teeth (excluding 3rd molars).
-
Craniofacial anomalies.
-
Medical condition or prescription medication that may affect growth.
-
Lack of compliance whenever documented in the charts.
Contacts and Locations
Locations
Site | City | State | Country | Postal Code | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Alazhar University | Cairo | القاهرة | Egypt | 11865 |
Sponsors and Collaborators
- Al-Azhar University
Investigators
None specified.Study Documents (Full-Text)
None provided.More Information
Publications
- 851/2971