Skip Navigation


The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on November 9, 2006
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2006 28(6):586-593; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjl034
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/6/586    most recent
cjl034v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Flores-Mir, C.
Right arrow Articles by Major, P. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Flores-Mir, C.
Right arrow Articles by Major, P. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

A systematic review of cephalometric facial soft tissue changes with the Activator and Bionator appliances in Class II division 1 subjects

Carlos Flores-Mir and Paul W. Major

Orthodontic Graduate Program and Cranio-facial & Oral-health Evidence-based Group, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Canada

Address for correspondence Dr Carlos Flores-Mir, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Room 4051A, Dentistry/Pharmacy Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton Alberta T6G 2N8, Canada. E-mail: carlosflores{at}ualberta.ca


   Summary
Top
 Summary
Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
The objective of the present systematic review was to evaluate, through lateral cephalograms, facial soft tissue changes after the use of the Activator and Bionator appliances in Class II division 1 malocclusion subjects.

Several electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Cochrane Database, Embase, Web of Sciences, and Lilacs) were searched with the assistance of a senior health sciences librarian. Abstracts, which appeared to fulfil the initial criteria, were selected by consensus. The original articles were then retrieved. Their references were also hand searched for possible missing articles. Clinical trials, which assessed facial soft tissue changes with the use of either an Activator or a Bionator appliance without any surgical intervention or syndromic characteristics, were considered. A comparable untreated control group was required to factor out normal growth changes.

Five articles using the Activator and six using the Bionator fulfilled the selection criteria and quantified facial soft tissue changes. An individual analysis of these articles was undertaken and some methodological flaws were identified.

Based on the available evidence, a significant amount of controversy regarding the soft tissue changes produced by the Activator and the Bionator exists. Soft tissue changes that were reported as being statistically significant were of questionable clinical significance. Long-term, double-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the findings. Three-dimensional quantification is also required to overcome current limitations in our understanding of the soft tissue changes obtained with the use of removable functional appliances.


   Introduction
Top
 Summary
 Introduction
Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
Class II division 1 malocclusions have been treated for more than a century with different removable functional appliances. A functional appliance is a removable or fixed appliance, which changes the mandible/maxilla interrelationship through forces generated by acrylic or wirework to the dentition and underlying structures. These forces are generated through stretching of muscles, fascia, and/or periosteum (Mills, 1991Go). Removable functional appliances can be classified into four groups (Macey-Dare and Nixon, 1999Go):

  1. tooth-borne passive (e.g. Activator, Bass, Bionator),
  2. tooth-borne active (e.g. Twin Block),
  3. tissue-borne (e.g. Fränkel), and
  4. combined (e.g. hybrid appliance).

These distinctive types of removable functional appliances produce changes through different mechanisms, but in essence they create a pattern of function which encourages a new morphological pattern in some of the dental and skeletal facial structures (Carels and van der Linden, 1987Go).

Among all the available passive tooth-borne functional appliances, the Activator and the Bionator are the most commonly used. Both appliances reposition the mandible in a more protrusive position, control the overbite, and modify dental eruption (Crokaert et al., 1989Go; Macey-Dare and Nixon, 1999Go).

Aesthetic improvement is one of the main reasons for seeking orthodontic treatment (Peck and Peck, 1995Go; Vig et al., 1999Go) and functional appliances are intended to improve occlusal relationships as well as facial profile (Pancherz and Anehus-Pancherz, 1994Go). Of the hundreds of reports evaluating the skeletal and dental changes produced by different removable functional appliances, only a relatively small proportion have analysed the soft tissue changes. Several individual studies have evaluated the soft tissue changes produced by the Activator or Bionator. Although some literature reviews (Bishara and Ziaja, 1989Go; Crokaert et al., 1989Go; Mills, 1991Go; Petrovic et al., 1991Go; Johnston, 1996Go; Barton and Cook, 1997Go; Rudzki-Janson and Noachtar, 1998Go; Macey-Dare and Nixon, 1999Go; Collett, 2000Go; McSherry and Bradley, 2000Go; Jacobs and Sawaengkit, 2002Go; Gill et al., 2005Go) and systematic reviews (Aelbers and Dermaut, 1996Go; Chen et al., 2002Go; Shen et al., 2005Go) have focused on the effect of different functional appliances on skeletal and dental structures, no systematic review has specifically focused on the evaluation of soft tissue changes produced by the Activator and Bionator appliances. Therefore, the objective of the present systematic review was to evaluate facial soft tissue changes using lateral cephalograms after the use of the Activator and Bionator appliances in Class II division 1 malocclusion subjects.


   Materials and methods
Top
 Summary
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
A computerized search was conducted using Medline (from 1966 to week 1 of January 2006), Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (up to 12 January 2006), Lilacs (from 1982 to December 2005), PubMed (1966 to week 1 of January 2006), Embase (from 1988 to week 1 of 2006), Web of Science (1945 to week 1 of 2006), and all evidence-based medicine (EBM) reviews (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, American College of Physicians Journal Club, database of abstracts of reviews of effects, and Cochrane database of trial registration; to the fourth quarter of 2005). The terms used in this literature search were ‘Activator’, ‘Bionator’, ‘functional appliances’, ‘soft tissue’, ‘profile changes’, and ‘facial changes’. The selection and specific use for each term in every database search were made with the help of a senior librarian specialized in health sciences database searches (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Search results from different electronic databases.

 
The following inclusion criteria were chosen to initially select potential articles from the published abstract results:
  1. Human clinical trials,
  2. Facial soft tissue changes evaluated through lateral cephalograms,
  3. Activator and/or Bionator functional appliances to correct Class II division 1 malocclusions,
  4. No syndromic or medically compromised patients,
  5. No individual case reports or series of cases, and
  6. No surgical intervention.

No attempts were made at this stage to identify studies which did not use adequate control groups to factor out growth changes. It was considered improbable that the abstracts would report sufficient information regarding control groups. This would potentially exclude some articles.

All the article abstracts that appeared to meet the initial inclusion criteria were selected, and the articles collected. The selection process was independently made by both authors and their results compared to settle discrepancies through discussion, except for the Lilacs database which was only evaluated by one of the researchers because of language limitation. If an article abstract did not provide sufficient information to make a decision, the actual article was obtained.

The articles ultimately selected were chosen with the following additional final inclusion criteria:

  1. A comparable control group to factor out growth changes if the subjects were still growing, and
  2. Only a removable functional appliance was used.

The actual articles from the selected article abstracts were then independently evaluated by both authors. A consensus was reached regarding which articles fulfilled the final selection criteria and these were finally included in the systematic review. Studies that did not factor out growth in growing subjects were rejected at this stage and not considered further. It was considered important to factor out craniofacial growth in order to make an accurate assessment of the amount of true magnitude of the soft tissue changes. Failure to consider craniofacial growth changes would result in a potential overestimation of the amount of changes obtained. Simultaneous use of fixed appliances was considered a confounder and a reason for exclusion. Although measurement error is needed for a correct interpretation of the clinical significance of the findings, it was not considered a reason to reject an article but rather was considered in the interpretation of the data.

Recognizing that more methodologically sound studies may provide more reliable conclusions, a methodological scoring process (Table 2) was developed to identify which selected studies would be most valuable. No attempt was made to imply that this evaluation tool has been properly validated. Previous reports (Juni et al., 1999Go, 2001Go; Verhagen et al., 2001Go) have shown that there is no sound evidence regarding the validity of the use of quality assessment of clinical trials, and they recommend that researchers examine individually the influence of key components of methodological quality.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Methodological score of selected articles.

 
The reference lists of the retrieved articles were also hand searched for additional relevant publications that may have been missed in the database searches. When extra information was required for discussion or statistical analysis and, was not specifically stated in the article, contact with the authors was undertaken to obtain the required information.


   Results
Top
 Summary
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
The search results and the final number of abstracts selected according to the initial selection criteria from the various databases are provided in Table 1. Comparing the database results, Medline and PubMed showed the greatest diversity of finally selected abstracts (slightly more than 50 per cent). The same abstracts were selected from PubMed and Medline. All the abstracts selected from all EBM reviews and Web of Science were already included in Medline and PubMed. Lilacs, which included only Latin-American publications, accounted for a significant percentage (33 per cent) of the finally selected abstracts which did not appear in any other databases. None of the finally selected articles was missed in the electronic database searches.

From the 30 studies, which based on the abstracts seemed to be potentially useful, only 11 (37 per cent) actually fulfilled the final selection criteria after reading the complete article (Table 2). The remaining 19 articles were rejected due to the lack of an adequate control group to factor out expected normal growth changes (Table 3) or because they were published only as an abstract, thesis, or later as a full article (Table 4). A flow diagram of the literature search appears in Figure 1.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Articles excluded due to a lack of a control sample to factor out normal changes.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4 Publications excluded because they were published only as an abstract, thesis, or later as a full article.

 

Figure 1
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 1 Flow diagram of the literature search.

 
Further details concerning the methodology of the selected studies are shown in Table 5.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5 Key details about the selected articles.

 

Activator

Five studies (Forsberg and Odenrick, 1981Go; Looi and Mills, 1986Go; Gogen and Parlar, 1989Go; Mamandras et al., 1989Go; Cozza et al., 2004Go) evaluated the soft tissue changes obtained with the use of an Activator. The specific measurements are shown in Table 6.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 6 Articles pertaining to Activators.

 
No changes in the naso-labial (SnLs SnNBt) and labio-mental (SiLi SiM') angles were observed (Looi and Mills, 1986Go), but a mild protrusion (1.8 degrees) of menton was reported (Cozza et al., 2004Go). Neither the tip (Forsberg and Odenrick, 1981Go) nor the base (Looi and Mills, 1986Go) of the nose underwent any change. Contradictory results were found regarding the position of the upper lip, the lower lip, and menton. Some studies (Forsberg and Odenrick, 1981Go; Looi and Mills, 1986Go; Gogen and Parlar, 1989Go) reported upper lip retrusion (–1.1 to –3 mm) but others no change (Mamandras et al., 1989Go; Cozza et al., 2004Go). Contradictory changes in upper lip thickness and length were also reported, but no changes in the lower lip or soft tissue menton were noted (Looi and Mills, 1986Go).


Bionator

Six studies (Lange et al., 1995Go; Oliveira et al., 1997Go; Morris et al., 1998Go; Almeida et al., 2001Go; Henriques et al., 2001Go; Maltagliati et al., 2004Go) evaluated the soft tissue changes using a Bionator. The measurements used are shown in Table 7.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 7 Articles pretaining to Bionators.

 
Contradictory results were reported for the facial angles. One of the studies (Henriques et al., 2001Go) did not report any changes in facial convexity, one a diminution (–2.2 degrees; Morris et al., 1998Go), and one augmentation (2.7 degrees; Lange et al., 1995Go). Regarding the labio-mental angle, a large increase (17 degrees; Lange et al., 1995Go) and no change (Morris et al., 1998Go) were observed. No studies reported a significant naso-labial angle change (Lange et al., 1995Go; Oliveira et al., 1997Go; Almeida et al., 2001Go; Henriques et al., 2001Go). Total face height and lower face thirds were augmented (Morris et al., 1998Go; Henriques et al., 2001Go).

Contradictory results were found for the antero-posterior position of the upper lip, lower lip, and soft tissue pogonion. Retrusion of the upper lip (–0.89 to –1.4 mm; Lange et al., 1995Go; Almeida et al., 2001Go) or no change (Morris et al., 1998Go; Henriques et al., 2001Go) was reported. For the lower lip, a protrusion (2.2–4.9 mm; Almeida et al., 2001Go; Henriques et al., 2001Go) or no significant change (Lange et al., 1995Go; Morris et al., 1998Go) was observed. Finally, soft tissue pogonion was found to be more protrusive (0.9 mm; Lange et al., 1995Go; Henriques et al., 2001Go) or unchanged (Morris et al., 1998Go).

A vertical increase was reported for upper lip, lower lip, and soft tissue menton measurements (Lange et al., 1995Go). The locations of the cephalometric points are shown in Figure 2. Definitions of the cephalometric points used in this study are defined elsewhere (Athanasiou, 1995Go).


Figure 2
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 2 Cephalometric points (Athanasiou, 1995Go). S, sella; N, nasion; N', soft tissue nasion; Tr, tragus; Or, orbitale; Prn, pronasale; Sn, subnasale; Ss, stomion superious; Ls, labrale superious; Li, labrale inferious; Si, stomion inferious; Pg', soft tissue pogonion; M', soft tissue menton; A, point A; B, point B; U1, tip of the upper incisor.

 

   Discussion
Top
 Summary
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
Conclusions
 References
 
The present systematic review was performed to analyse the soft tissue changes produced with the use of the Activator and Bionator appliances in Class II division 1 malocclusion subjects.

A significant number (25 per cent) of the finally selected studies appeared only in the Lilacs database. This finding shows the need for comprehensive database searches for systematic reviews in all possible languages. Previous studies have also raised this issue (Sutton et al., 2000Go; Clarke, 2002Go).

Art students, dental students, and parents of orthodontic patients did not perceive any significant soft tissue differences in subjects treated with two types of removable functional appliances (Activator and Fränkel; O’Neill et al., 2000Go) in comparison with untreated controls. Therefore, although some statistically significant soft tissue changes were found after the use of the Activator or Bionator appliances, the clinical significance, at least from a layperson's perspective, is questionable.

Another problem found in this systematic review was that the level of evidence from the selected reports was low. Only two (Looi and Mills, 1986Go; Morris et al., 1998Go) of the final selected studies obtained a methodological score higher than 50 per cent. Only one (Morris et al., 1998Go) of those was an actual randomized clinical trial. More methodologically sound trials are required to attain the best possible level of evidence (double-blinded, randomized clinical trials) to understand the soft tissue changes produced by these types of functional appliances.

Although an increase of the lower facial third is associated with functional appliance treatment (Alexander et al., 1999Go; Bardinet et al., 2003Go), only one (Lange et al., 1995Go) of the selected studies reported soft tissue vertical changes. Skeletal vertical changes are an important component of functional appliances (Falck and Kobel, 1985Go; Lange et al., 1995Go; Morris et al., 1998Go); therefore, they should be discussed with the patients.

The importance of posture in assessing soft tissues cephalometrically also has to be considered. Some studies use vertical lines based on natural head position changes, while others use vertical lines from heads positioned with Frankfort parallel to the floor to evaluate soft tissue changes. This makes comparison between measurements questionable.

Reference structures used to quantify soft tissue changes have to be carefully considered. For example, the aesthetic plane is not a good reference plane to quantify changes in the lips. Simultaneous changes in soft tissue pogonion or pronasale could create the impression of lip changes that are really non-existent. One study (Nalbantgil et al., 2005Go) reported that if the aesthetic plane was not used and instead a linear distance to a vertical line through sella, then a significant retroposition of the upper lip was found but there was no lower lip change. If the aesthetic plane was used as a reference, then no significant antero-posterior change of the upper lip, but a significant protrusion of the lower lip, was observed.

Future studies should consider three-dimensional (3D) analysis of the soft tissue changes produced by the Activator and Bionator. Conventional orthodontic frontal and lateral cephalometric analyses do not seem capable of comprehensive evaluations of 3D changes. Use of stereophotogrammetry or a laser surface scanner will overcome the current limitations. A very limited number of studies evaluating 3D soft tissue changes after functional treatment have been published (Illing et al., 1998Go; Morris et al., 1998Go; McDonagh et al., 2001Go). Their main limitations were failing to use a normal non-treated control group and presenting the results as visual changes rather than actual volumetric changes.


   Conclusions
Top
 Summary
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
References
 
Based on the available evidence, there is significant controversy regarding the soft tissue changes produced by the Activator and the Bionator.

For the studies that supported significant changes, the nature of reported changes was of questionable clinical significance.


   Acknowledgement
 
Special thanks to Linda Seale for her professional assistance in the database search.


   References
Top
 Summary
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 

    Aelbers CM and Dermaut LR. (1996) Orthopedics in orthodontics: Part I, fiction or reality—a review of the literature. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 110:513–519.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Alexander S, Jumlongras D, White GE. (1999) Posterior vertical bite opening: a new paradigm in dentofacial orthopedic/orthodontic therapy. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 23:295–300.[Medline]

    Almeida MR de. (2000) Comparative cephalometric evaluation of class II, division 1 malocclusion interceptation using Frankel and Bionator appliances. (Thesis, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil)237 (in Portuguese).

    Almeida MR de, Henriques JFC, Almeida RR de, Freitas MR de, Pinzan A. (2000) Treatment effects produced by Bionator appliance compared with an untreated Class II sample. Jornal Brasileiro de Ortodontia e Ortopedia Facial 5:38–48 (in Portuguese).

    Almeida MR de, Henriques JFC, Freitas MR de, Pinzan A. (2001) Comparative cephalometric evaluation of the interceptive treatment of the Class II division 1 malocclusion using Frankel and bionator applicances. Revista Dental Press de Ortodontia e Ortopedia Maxilar 6:11–27 (in Portuguese).

    Almeida-Pedrin RR de. (2003) Comparative study of the maxillary splint and Bionator appliances in the treatment of class II, division 1 malocclusion. (Thesis, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil)209 (in Portuguese).

    Athanasiou AE. (1995) Orthodontic cephalometry. (Mosby-Wolfe, Cambridge).

    Bardinet E, et al. (2003) Vertical control and orthopedic therapy. L' Orthodontie Française 74:377–409 (in French).

    Barton S and Cook PA. (1997) Predicting functional appliance treatment outcome in Class II malocclusions—a review. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 112:282–286.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Bishara SE and Ziaja RR. (1989) Functional appliances: a review. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 95:250–258.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Brangeli LAM. (2000) The orthopedic treatment influence in hard and soft facial structures of individuals presenting Class II, Division 1 malocclusion: a comparative study. (Thesis, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil)257 (in Portuguese).

    Carels C and van der Linden FPGM. (1987) Concepts on functional appliances’ mode of action. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 92:162–168.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Chen JY, Will LA, Niederman R. (2002) Analysis of efficacy of functional appliances on mandibular growth. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 122:470–476.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Clarke M. (2002) Commentary: searching for trials for systematic reviews: what difference does it make? . International Journal of Epidemiology 31:123–124.[Free Full Text]

    Collett AR. (2000) Current concepts on functional appliances and mandibular growth stimulation. Australian Dental Journal 45:173–188.[ISI][Medline]

    Cozza P, De Toffol L, Colagrossi S. (2004) Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes during activator therapy. European Journal of Orthodontics 26:293–302.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Crokaert JD, Marchal AM, Kleutghen J. (1989) Functional appliances. Possibility of correction of a Class II malocclusion. Revue Belge de Medecine Dentaire 44:70–84 (in French).

    De Clerck H and Timmerman H. (1994) Effect of headgear activator treatment and of mandibular advancement osteotomy on profile convexity. Revue Belge de Medecine Dentaire 49:63–74 (in French).

    Deguchi T. (1991) Skeletal, dental, and functional effects of headgear-activator therapy on Class II malocclusion in Japanese: a clinical case report. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 100:274–285.[ISI][Medline]

    Dominguez C and Vigorito JW. (1997) Dental-skeletal-facial changes after bionator therapy in retrusive Class II malocclusion. Journal of Dental Research 76:129 (abstract).

    Falck F and Kobel EM. (1985) Changes in the soft tissue profile in treatment with function regulators. Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 46:407–415 (in German).[CrossRef][Medline]

    Forsberg CM and Odenrick L. (1981) Skeletal and soft tissue response to activator treatment. European Journal of Orthodontics 3:247–253.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Fourka P. (1990) Study on the cephalographic X-rays on the changes of the soft tissues of the face of growing patients after orthodontic treatment with functional appliances. Orthodontike Epitheorese 2:63–78 (in Greek).

    Freitas BV and Vigorito JW. (1999) Study of skeletal and dental changes in female patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion with mandibular retrognatism treated by Balters Bionator in the pre-puberal period. Ortodontia 32:29–43 (in Portuguese).

    Gill D, Sharma A, Naini F, Jones S. (2005) The Twin Block appliance for the correction of Class II malocclusion. Dental Update 32:158–160 163–164; 167–168.[Medline]

    Gogen H and Parlar S. (1989) Evaluation of facial profile changes in individuals with skeletal Class II anomaly treated with activator and activator + occipital headgear. Turk Ortodonti Dergisi 2:299–306 (in Turkish).

    Henriques JFC, Brageli LAM, Almeida RR, Janson GRP. (2001) The orthopedic treatment influence in soft facial structures of individuals presenting Class II, Division 1 malocclusion, a comparative study. Ortodontia 34:57–64 (in Portuguese).

    Hirschfelder U and Fleischer-Peters A. (1993) A critical evaluation of Class-II anomalies treated with functional orthodontic appliances. Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 54:237–248 (in German).[CrossRef][Medline]

    Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. (1998) A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I—the hard tissues. European Journal of Orthodontics 20:501–516.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Jacobs T and Sawaengkit P. (2002) National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research efficacy trials of bionator Class II treatment: a review. The Angle Orthodontist 72:571–575.[ISI][Medline]

    Johnston LE Jr. (1996) Functional appliances: a mortgage on mandibular position. Australian Orthodontic Journal 14:154–157.[Medline]

    Jonas I. (1984) Bone and soft tissue profile changes following headgear and activator therapy. Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 45:335–347 (in German).[CrossRef][Medline]

    Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. British Medical Journal 323:42–46.[Free Full Text]

    Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. (1999) The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association 282:1054–1060.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Kamonji Y. (1980) A morphological study on facial soft tissue in orthodontic treatment by use of activators. Journal of Nihon University School of Dentistry 22:90–100 (In Japanese).

    Lange DW, Kalra V, Broadbent BH Jr, Powers M, Nelson S. (1995) Changes in soft tissue profile following treatment with the bionator. The Angle Orthodontist 65:423–430.[ISI][Medline]

    Looi LK and Mills JRE. (1986) The effect of two contrasting forms of orthodontic treatment on the facial profile. American Journal of Orthodontics 89:507–517.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Luder HU. (1982) Skeletal profile changes related to two patterns of activator effects. American Journal of Orthodontics 81:390–396.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Macey-Dare LV and Nixon F. (1999) Functional appliances: mode of action and clinical use. Dental Update 26:240–246.[Medline]

    Maltagliati LA, Henriques JFC, Janson G, Almeida RR de, Freitas MR de. (2004) Influence of orthopedic treatment on hard and soft facial structures of individuals presenting with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion: a comparative study. Journal of Applied Oral Science 12:164–170.

    Mamandras AH, D’Aloisio DR, Lenizky RJ. (1989) Facial changes in children treated with the Activator appliance: a lateral cephalometric study. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 55:727–730.

    Marin GM, Masson RM, Soto L. (1989) Cephalometric changes in patients treated with the elastic open Klammt activator. Revista Cubana de Ortodoncia 4:76–80 (in Spanish).

    McDonagh S, Moss JP, Goodwin P, Lee RT. (2001) A prospective optical surface scanning and cephalometric assessment of the effect of functional appliances on the soft tissues. European Journal of Orthodontics 23:115–126.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    McSherry PF and Bradley H. (2000) Class II correction-reducing patient compliance: a review of the available techniques. Journal of Orthodontics 27:219–225.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Mills JRE. (1991) The effect of functional appliances on the skeletal pattern. British Journal of Orthodontics 18:267–275.[Abstract]

    Morris DO. (1995) The effects of functional appliances on the soft-tissue facial form. Journal of Dental Research 74:822 (abstract).

    Morris DO, Illing HM, Lee RT. (1998) A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part II—the soft tissues. European Journal of Orthodontics 20:663–684.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Nalbantgil D, Arun T, Sayinsu K, Fulya I. (2005) Skeletal, dental and soft-tissue changes induced by the Jasper Jumper appliance in late adolescence. The Angle Orthodontist 75:426–436.[ISI][Medline]

    Oliveira AJ de, Oliveira AG de, Oliveira G de, Oliveira JN de, Pereira AM. (1997) Cephalometric evaluation of the facial, dental and skeletal changes occurred in Class II Division 1, patients following orthopedic headgear and Balters’ Bionator therapy. Jornal Brasileiro de Ortodontia e Ortopedia Maxilar Clinica 1:51–63 (in Portuguese).

    O'Neill K, Harkness M, Knight R. (2000) Ratings of profile attractiveness after functional appliance treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 118:371–376 discussion 377.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Pancherz H and Anehus-Pancherz M. (1994) Facial profile changes during and after Herbst appliance treatment. European Journal of Orthodontics 16:275–286.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Peck S and Peck L. (1995) Selected aspects of the art and science of facial esthetics. Seminars in Orthodontics 1:105–126.[CrossRef][Medline]

    Petrovic A, Stutzmann J, Lavergne J, Shaye R. (1991) Is it possible to modulate the growth of the human mandible with a functional appliance? . International Journal of Orthodontics 29:3–8.[Medline]

    Remmer KR, Mamandras AH, Hunter WS, Way DC. (1985) Cephalometric changes associated with treatment using the activator, the Fränkel appliance, and the fixed appliance. American Journal of Orthodontics 88:363–372.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Rudzki-Janson I and Noachtar R. (1998) Functional appliance therapy with the Bionator. Seminars in Orthodontics 4:33–45.[CrossRef][Medline]

    Shen G, Hägg U, Darendeliler M. (2005) Skeletal effects of bite jumping therapy on the mandible—removable vs. fixed functional appliances. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research 8:2–10.

    Singh GD and Thind BS. (2003) Effects of the headgear-activator Teuscher appliance in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion: a geometric morphometric study. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research 6:88–95.

    Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, Abrams KR, Jones DR. (2000) Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. British Medical Journal 320:1574–1577.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Boers M, van den Brandt PA. (2001) The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 54:651–654.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Vig KW, Weyant R, O'Brien K, Bennett E. (1999) Developing outcome measures in orthodontics that reflect patient and provider values. Seminars in Orthodontics 5:85–95.[Medline]

    Weichbrodt L and Ingervall B. (1992) Treatment of Class II, div. 1 malocclusion with the activator and with the Begg technique. Schweizer Monatsschrift für Zahnmedizin 102:1037–1045.

    Zhou J, Luo S, Yu X, Huang N. (2001) Establishment and research of the computerized profile and photo prediction system. West China Journal of Stomatology 19:52–54 (in Chinese).


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/6/586    most recent
cjl034v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Flores-Mir, C.
Right arrow Articles by Major, P. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Flores-Mir, C.
Right arrow Articles by Major, P. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?