PubMed · 6928845
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J T Howard. 1980. Multi-technique approach for treating malocclusions.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6928845/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The initial effects of treatment of Class II, Division 1 malocclusion with an activator, according to Herren (27 patients), with an activator-headgear combination (20 patients), or with the Jasper Jumper appliance (25 patients) were studied on lateral cephalograms from before and after 6 to 8 months of treatment. The patients' ages ranged from 9 to 12 years. At the end of the period of observation, the correction in overjet and molar relationship was more complete in the patients with the Jasper Jumper than in the patients with the activator. Whereas all the patients with the Jasper Jumper showed neutral occlusion, this was the case in only 20 of the 47 patients with the activator. The correction of the distal occlusion occurred through a combination of skeletal and dentoalveolar adaptations. Skeletal changes accounted for 42%, 35%, and 48% of the overjet correction by the Herren-type activator, the headgear-activator, and the Jasper Jumper, respectively. The correction of the molar relationship occurred to 55%, 46%, and 38% by skeletal changes in the respective groups. Dentoalveolar compensation (distal movement of the upper molars, mesial movement of the lower molars) appeared to be inversely related to skeletal adaptation. The patients with the Jasper Jumper showed a marked intrusion of the lower incisors with a consequent reduction in overbite.
In the first phase of a randomized clinical trial of early versus late Class II treatment, statistically significant differences were observed between the treatment and observation groups. However, there were wide variations in response. The change in jaw relationship (categorized as the annualized reduction in ANB angle) was favorable or highly favorable in 76% of the headgear, 83% of the functional appliance, and 31% of control (observation only) groups. The patient's initial skeletal severity, age/maturity at the outset of treatment, growth pattern, and cooperation with treatment were examined as possible influences on early growth modification treatment. Correlations between the annualized change in the ANB angle and any of the possible influences were close to zero and not statistically significant. We conclude that there is little to be gained from precisely timing early treatment to specific age/maturity markers and that a favorable reduction in Class II skeletal problems can occur for patients in a broad range of skeletal severity and growth patterns. Cooperation, measured as the number of hours of reported wear, or the clinical assessment of compliance, explained little of the variation in treatment response. The wide variation in growth seen in the untreated patients highlights the importance of well-controlled studies if clinicians are to improve their ability to select children with the greatest chances of a favorable treatment response.
The Jasper Jumper appliance provides a method of Class II correction with an active force component that the patient cannot remove. A modification of classic Jasper Jumper usage is illustrated in a mixed dentition case where full banding is impractical. This report shows how Jasper Jumper springs can be attached to a fixed maxillary expansion appliance and a lower lingual holding arch for correction of a Class II malocclusion. Cephalometric analysis revealed that despite seemingly adequate anchorage for the springs, treatment changes were largely dentoalveolar, with minimal improvement in the underlying skeletal structures. Some restraint of maxillary growth was found, but most of the overjet correction was due to forward movement of the mandibular dentoalveolar complex and retraction of the maxillary dentoalveolar complex.