Aim: Two-phase treatment for children with Class II malocclusion with several functional appliances is still performed by many orthodontists, while the Activator and the Bionator appliances are two of the most popular ones. Aim of this study was to compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of treatment with these two appliances.
Methods: Class II children treated with Activator or Bionator in the first phase, followed by a phase of fixed appliances were included. Skeletal and dentoalveolar parameters were assessed from lateral cephalograms and analysed with linear regressions at 5%.
Results: A total of 89 patients (mean age 10.0 years; 47% female) were included. During the first phase, Bionator increased less the SNB (difference in mean treatment-induced changes [MD] -0.7°; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.3 to -0.2°; P=0.01) and decreased less the ANB angle (MD 0.6°; 95% CI 0 to 1.1°; P=0.03) compared to Activator. Activator slightly increased the facial axis and Bionator reduced it (MD -1.6°; 95% CI -2.3 to -0.8°; P<0.001). Compared to Activator, the Bionator retroclined more the upper incisors (MD -2.4°; 95% CI -4.6 to -0.2°; P=0.03) and increased more the interincisal angle (MD 2.9°; 95% CI 0.5 to 5.4°; P=0.02). After the second phase (6.2 years after baseline), the only differences were a reduced facial axis (MD -1.3°; 95% CI -2.2 to -0.3°; P=0.008) and an increased maxillary rotation (MD 0.9°; 95% CI 0 to 1.8°; P=0.04) with Bionator compared to Activator.
Conclusion: Similar dentoalveolar effects were seen overall with two-phase treatment with either appliance, with Bionator being associated with more vertical increase compared to Activator.
Keywords: Class II malocclusion; Functional appliances; Lateral cephalograms; Mandibular growth; Retrospective clinical study.
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.