Journal of Contemporary Orthodontics

Official Publication of Indian Orthodontic Society


Sharma, Jayan, Chopra, Krishnan, Chaudhary, Thakur, and Jain: Evaluation of clinical effects of AdvansyncTM 2 fixed functional appliance in skeletal Class II malocclusion: A retrospective cephalometric study


Introduction

Class II malocclusion being a common maxillο-mandibular skeletal discrepancy, has been reported in 23% children, 15% youths and 13% adults. 1, 2 It manifests as maxillary prognathism, mandibular retrognathism, or a combination of both. 3 Removable functional appliances like the Activator, Bionator and Twin Block, though effective are dependent upon patient compliance for clinical success. However, Fixed functional appliances (FFAs) being non-compliant Class II correctors, do not depend upon patient compliance for a favourable treatment outcome. AdvanSyncTM FFA was introduced in 2008 and later upgraded to the AdvanSync 2TM FFA (Ormco Corporation) in 2012 which is reported to produce greater skeletal changes than its contemporaries.4, 5, 6

AdvanSyncTM 2, developed by Terry and Bill Dischinger, is a rigid fixed tooth-borne functional appliance. The appliance consists of crowns cemented on the maxillary and mandibular first permanent molars with interconnecting telescopic rods that posture the mandible forward to promote mandibular growth at the condylar region. 6 In addition to enhancing mandibular growth, AdvanSyncTM 2 is also reported to restrain further maxillary growth, hence producing a ‘headgear effect’.7

Though literature is replete with evidences in favour of FFAs,8, 9, 10 this study was conducted to provide comprehensive data on the skeletal, dental, soft-tissue and airway changes produced by AdvanSync TM 2 appliance in correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion.

The null hypothesis for the study was ‘There are no changes in skeletal, dental, soft-tissue and airway parameters following treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion with AdvanSync TM 2 fixed functional appliance.

Sample size calculation

The sample size for the study was calculated based on the formula described by Pandis with a 95% level of significance and 80% power. 11 The sample size obtained to test the null hypothesis was 12. The sample characteristics are depicted in Table 1.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study was conducted in the department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics of a tertiary care government dental establishment following ethical clearance obtained by the institutional ethical committee. The inclusion criteria comprised of patients diagnosed with skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrognathism. Cases with complete pre-functional and post-functional records, permanent dentition with symmetric Class II molar relation bilaterally, an overjet >5mm, a positive Visual Treatment Objective (VTO) indicating functional appliance therapy and treated with AdvanSync TM 2 fixed functional appliance were chosen to be included in the study sample. Exclusion criteria comprised of patients with history of previous orthodontic treatment/ trauma/ systemic disorders affecting the bone metabolism. Patients with neuromuscular disorders/ TMJ pathology, syndromes including cleft lip and palate and skeletal asymmetry were excluded.

Based on the set inclusion and exclusion criteria, pre-treatment records (T0) of 12 patients were taken from the departmental archives. A representative case is shown in Figure 1. This study aimed to analyse the effects of the AdvanSync TM 2 (Ormco AdvanSync TM II) independent of a fixed preadjusted edgewise appliance. This method of application was derived from Ghaffar et al who similarly compared the dentoskeletal efficacy of the AdvanSync TM 2 to another functional appliance. 12 The functional phase lasted for 6-8 months until unrestrained Class I molar and canine relation was observed along with optimum facial esthetics. At this stage, post-functional records (T1) were taken and the AdvanSync TM 2 appliance was removed. Following functional phase, the patients underwent fixed orthodontic treatment using a 0.022” MBT pre-adjusted edgewise appliance. The dentition was leveled and aligned using standard archwire sequence followed by settling of the occlusion.

The pre-functional and immediate post-functional lateral cephalograms were hand-traced and the selected parameters shown in Figure 2 were measured by single operator. To check for intra-operator reliability, records of 10 cases were selected randomly after one week and landmark identification, tracing and measurements were repeated by the same operator. Intra-operator reliability coefficient was calculated and was found to be high (0.98-1).

Statistical analysis

The data was statistically analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS ver 23, IBM Corporation, USA) for Microsoft Windows. Paired parametric data (pre-functional v/s post-functional) was tested using paired t-test.

Table 1

Sample characteristics*

Parameters

(n = 12)

Age (Years)

14.25 ± 0.75

Gender

Male

6 (50.0%)

Female

6 (50.0%)

CVMI Stage

4.50 ± 0.52

[i] * CVMI is Cervical Vertebral Maturation Index

Table 2

Changes observed in cephalometric parameters with AdvanSync 2 appliance therapy *

Parameters

Pretreatment T0 (Mean + SD)

Post Functional T1 (Mean + SD)

Difference (T1-T0)

% Change

p-value

1. Skeletal Parameters Na

81.58 ± 2.07

81.58 ± 2.07

0.00 ± 0.43

0.00 ± 0.52

1.000

SNB

75.58 ± 1.98

78.21 ± 2.33

2.62 ± 0.98

3.47 ± 1.30

<0.001

ANB

5.75 ± 1.29

3.71 ± 1.96

-2.04 ± 1.68

-36.20 ± 33.21

0.018

Wits

3.17 ± 1.71

0.92 ± 1.08

-2.25 ± 1.03

-Inf ± 0

0.002

Maxillomandibular Differential

18.92 ± 5.82

22.08 ± 6.10

2.65 ± 1.59

18.62 ± 12.03

<0.001

Estimated length maxilla

74.75 ± 4.67

75.17 ± 4.47

-0.88 ± 1.35

0.60 ± 2.03

0.312

Estimated length mandible

95.42 ± 7.44

98.92 ± 7.42

3.50 ± 1.09

3.69 ± 1.17

<0.001

Jaraback’s Ratio

67.86 ± 4.49

68.90 ± 4.91

1.05 ± 2.02

1.55 ± 2.95

0.100

Saddle Angle

125.62 ± 5.15

125.58 ± 5.11

-0.04 ± 0.69

-0.03 ± 0.56

0.838

Articulare Angle

138.92 ± 7.72

140.00 ± 7.50

1.08 ± 0.79

0.79 ± 0.59

<0.001

Gonial Angle

124.00 ± 8.60

125.75 ± 9.16

1.75 ± 0.97

1.39 ± 0.73

<0.001

Bjork’s Sum of Angles

388.71 ± 5.24

391.50 ± 5.58

2.79 ± 1.50

0.72 ± 0.38

<0.001

Basal Plane Angle (BP Angle)

21.25 ± 4.35

23.50 ± 4.42

2.25 ± 1.14

10.96 ± 5.84

<0.001

Lower Anterior Facial Height (LAFH)

51.62 ± 5.24

54.25 ± 5.46

2.62 ± 1.15

5.10 ± 2.19

<0.001

Sn Go Gn

28.25 ± 4.45

29.83 ± 4.61

1.58 ± 0.79

5.68 ± 2.91

<0.001

Y Axis

63.58 ± 1.98

63.75 ± 1.76

0.17 ± 0.39

0.27 ± 0.64

0.166

UAFH:LAFH

1.03 ± 0.08

1.07 ± 0.13

0.04 ± 0.10

3.48 ± 9.55

0.082

N Perp- Pt A

-2.00 ± 3.77

-2.00 ± 3.64

0.00 ± 0.43

-6.25 ± 15.54

1.000

N Perp- Pog

-8.17 ± 2.08

-6.92 ± 2.11

-1.25 ± 0.45

-16.01 ± 6.16

0.001

2. Dental Parameters

UI to NA (Angle)

35.58 ± 5.38

31.33 ± 5.25

-4.25 ± 2.77

-11.75 ± 7.59

<0.001

UI to NA (mm)

7.28 ± 2.60

5.64 ± 2.15

1.63 ± 1.21

-18.70 ± 20.97

0.005

LI to NB (Angle)

27.00 ± 6.22

30.25 ± 6.80

3.25 ± 1.36

12.30 ± 4.88

<0.001

LI to NB (mm)

4.67 ± 1.86

5.82 ± 2.00

1.16 ± 0.44

29.03 ± 17.12

<0.001

UI-SN

115.25 ± 7.16

111.67 ± 6.95

-3.58 ± 2.23

-3.09 ± 1.90

<0.001

IMPA

99.42 ± 7.34

102.50 ± 7.04

3.08 ± 1.44

3.14 ± 1.52

<0.001

UI- APog

9.21 ± 2.04

7.33 ± 1.50

-1.88 ± 1.57

-19.15 ± 13.37

0.002

Interincisal Angle

111.17 ± 11.38

114.42 ± 10.94

3.25 ± 1.06

2.99 ± 1.17

<0.001

L1-Apog

2.08 ± 1.38

3.71 ± 1.68

1.62 ± 0.77

Inf ± 0

0.002

UI to A Vert

4.67 ± 1.23

4.17 ± 1.03

-0.50 ± 0.52

-9.58 ± 10.25

0.020

3. Soft Tissue Parameters

Upper lip to E line

1.33 ± 2.10

0.83 ± 2.25

-0.50 ± 1.57

-Inf ± 0

0.286

Lower lip to E line

1.00 ± 3.20

0.83 ± 2.33

0.17 ± 1.66

-52.92 ± 51.86

0.734

Nasolabial Angle

101.29 ± 7.15

108.08 ± 6.37

6.79 ± 3.04

6.82 ± 3.17

0.002

Soft Tissue Convexity

90.25 ± 1.91

92.50 ± 2.35

2.25 ± 1.06

2.49 ± 1.16

<0.001

4. Airway Parameters

Superior Airway

15.92 ± 2.27

16.67 ± 2.74

0.75 ± 0.75

4.44 ± 4.49

0.018

Posterior Pharyngeal Airway

9.33 ± 1.78

10.75 ± 2.14

1.42 ± 0.67

15.14 ± 5.86

<0.001

Hyoid Distance

11.92 ± 4.89

11.25 ± 4.11

-0.67 ± 2.42

-4.35 ± 19.73

0.403

Hyoid Angle

17.67 ± 4.25

17.42 ± 4.44

-0.25 ± 2.18

-1.08 ± 12.89

0.721

[i] *T0 indicates pretreatment; T1, post functional; P, results of paired t-test

Results

Changes achieved in skeletal parameters are depicted in Figure 3 and Table 2. Skeletal parameters such as SNB, Wits, maxillo-mandibular differential, estimated length of mandible (EL-mand), Articulare angle, Gonial angle, Björk’s sum, basal plane angle, Sn-GoGn, lower anterior facial height (LAFH), Na-perp-Pog differed significantly at T1 (p value<0.05). Skeletal parameters SNA, Na-perp-PtA, UAFH-LAFH ratio, Y-axis, Saddle angle, Jaraback’s ratio, estimated length of maxilla (EL-max) did not differ significantly at T1 (p value>0.05).

Figure 1

(a) : Pre-treatment records of a 12 Y/o male patient with a chief complaint of forwardly placed upper front teeth (b) : AdvanSync TM 2 Fixed functional Appliance in-situ (c) : Post-functional records

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/10b041af-4743-4545-856a-756c4899ffb7/image/b989031a-0af4-4da3-b70a-59b0b060c22d-uimage.png

Figure 2

Cephalometric Landmarks used in the study: Nasion (N), Soft tissue Nasion (N’), Orbitale (Or), Sella (Se), Porion (Po), Condylion (Co), Articulare (Ar), Gonion (Go), Menton (Me), Gnathion (Gn), Pogonion (Po), Soft Tissue Pogonion (Pog’), Lower lip (Li), Upper Lip (Ls), Subnasale (Sn’), Hyoidale (H)

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/10b041af-4743-4545-856a-756c4899ffb7/image/668b982a-13ea-4758-83de-4ed141cbb434-uimage.png

Figure 3

Mean changes in skeletal cephalometric parameters with AdvanSyncTM 2

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/10b041af-4743-4545-856a-756c4899ffb7/image/36e87da5-8d34-4f51-b7b9-26e4143bd252-uimage.png

Figure 4

Distribution of mean dental cephalometric changes achieved with AdvanSync TM 2

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/10b041af-4743-4545-856a-756c4899ffb7/image/5cbc97ca-ed26-4743-91f4-8325da940409-uimage.png

Figure 5

Distribution of mean soft-tissue changes achieved with AdvanSyncTM 2

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/10b041af-4743-4545-856a-756c4899ffb7/image/d13a0e56-0c58-4d6f-bf2a-4ebb0dbaae54-uimage.png

Figure 6

Mean airway cephalometric changes achieved with AdvanSyncTM 2

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/10b041af-4743-4545-856a-756c4899ffb7/image/be405582-fb7b-45e2-89cf-5a917091cc36-uimage.png

Figure 7
https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/10b041af-4743-4545-856a-756c4899ffb7/image/f59f695e-5100-41ca-b0bd-c2de264a017c-uimage.png

Figure 8
https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/10b041af-4743-4545-856a-756c4899ffb7/image/ea37c11c-6c23-41b4-9c06-6127eec2c74d-uimage.png

Statistically significant changes at T1 were observed for dental parameters U1-NA (angular and linear), L1 to NB (angular and linear), U1-SN angle, IMPA, Inter-incisal angle, L1 to A-Pog, U1 to A-Pog (p value <0.05). U1 to A-vert did not show a statistically significant change at T1. Dentoalveolar changes are shown in Figure 4 and Table 2.

Soft tissue parameters, facial convexity and nasolabial angle revealed statistically significant results at T1 (p value<0.05), while UL to E-line and LL to E-line changes were not found to be significant (p value>0.05) as shown in Figure 5 and Table 2. For airway parameters statistical significance was obtained in the changes obtained in posterior pharyngeal airway space (p value <0.05), while superior airway space, hyoid distance and hyoid angle changes were not statistically significant (p value >0.05). Airway changes are shown in Figure 6 and in Table 2.

Discussion

The corrective effect of fixed functional appliances is cumulative of dental and skeletal changes which result in an improvement in the overall esthetics and function. 13 Cacciatore et al in a systematic review reported a 1-degree decrease in ANB, and -3.5mm to 2mm improvement in the Wits and maxillomandibular differentials with the use of functional appliances. 14

Skeletal changes

In the present study, AdvanSync TM 2 produced a statistically significant decrease in the ANB (mean change of 2.04 degrees) by producing a significant increase in the SNB (2.62 degrees). The sagittal correction of the mandible was observed as an improvement in the Wits appraisal (-2.25) and maxillomandibular differential (3.50mm mean increase). Similar results have been reported by Ghaffar et al. Bhonsale et al and Kaushik et al. 11, 15, 16

The results of the current study differed from those reported by Mofty et al and Al-Jewair et al who reported on the ‘headgear effect’ of the appliance. 17, 18 In the present study, the sagittal correction in ANB had been significantly contributed to by an increase in the SNB (mean 2.62-degree increase). Mandibular growth was evident by the significant changes in the maxilla-mandibular differentials in the current study. The increase in length of the mandible (Co-Gn) (mean 3.50mm) was found to be statistically significant. Jayachandran et al also reported a mean increase of 7.53 mm of Co-Gn and 5.58mm in Mx-Md differential. 6

Statistically significant improvement in the facial height with a mean increase of 2.62 mm in the lower anterior facial height (ANS-Me) were also found in the present study being supported by similar reports by Jayachandran et al, Pyarilal et al and Kaushik et al. 6, 16, 19 Improvement in the lower anterior facial height was supported by an equivalent increase in the gonial angle, basal plane angle, SN-GoGn angle and Y-axis, all denoting the downward rotation of the mandible in addition to its sagittal advancement by the functional appliance.

No statistically significant change in the maxillary growth (EL-max -0.88mm) was observed in the present study. Literature on the maxillary restrictive effect of the appliance is varied with some studies reporting significant skeletal growth restriction while others support no restrictive effect of functional appliances. 13 The dichotomy in maxillary skeletal growth restriction by the appliance can be explained by the method of usage of the appliance between the current study and previous reports. The current methodology is similar to a study by Ghaffar et al, which cites similar non-significant effects on maxillary skeletal. 11

Dental changes

In the present study, angular and linear measurements of U1 to NA (Steiner Analysis) were observed to decrease by 4.25 degree and 1.63 mm respectively, while U1 to SN decreased by 3.58 degrees. Though the upper incisors showed statistically significant correction in inclination, the lower incisors proclined significantly with AdvanSync TM 2. IMPA increased by a mean of 3.08 degrees, L1 to NA (angular) increased by 3.25 degrees, L1 to NA (linear) increased by 1.16mm, and L1 to Pt A-Pog by 1.62mm. Al-Jewair et al reported similar changes in L1 to Pt A-Pog of 0.9mm and IMPA increase of 3.8 degree in the AdvanSync TM group. 5 Ghaffar et al reported similar results of a 2.13-degree increase in IMPA. 11 These results suggest AdvanSync TM 2 to produce limited flaring of incisors when used independent of a fixed orthodontic edgewise appliance therapy.

Soft tissues

AdvanSync TM 2 produced a retraction of the upper lip relative to Rickett’s E-line by 0.50mm. This could be explained by the maxillary restraining effect of the appliance. The lower lip to E-line increased by 0.17mm in Group 2 and can be due to the increase in the mandibular projection due to sagittal advancement and the dentoalveolar effects of the appliance on the lower incisors. Nasolabial angle showed a significant increase of 6.79 degrees, similar to the report by Bhonsale et al.15 Contrary to the current study, Jayachandran et al reported larger changes in upper lip retraction of 2.54mm while lower lip projection increased by 1mm. 6 Their findings can be attributed to the higher dentoalveolar effects in both maxillary and mandibular parameters, as seen in the AdvanSync TM sample.

Airway changes

Treatment with AdvanSync TM 2 produced statistically significant improvement in upper airway dimensions by 0.75mm and lower airway dimensional changes of 1.42mm, secondary to its effect on mandibular growth and rotation.

Airway changes secondary to functional appliances therapy are attributable to both sagittal advancement of the mandible and its rotation. These therapeutic skeletal effects of functional jaw orthopaedics could aid in increasing the linear dimension of the airway, especially in cases of severe mandibular retrusion. Notwithstanding this, functional appliances are not the primary therapeutic approach in patients of airway and breathing disorders.

Limitations of the study

Statistically significant results were obtained for the objectives in the study, though, the following limitations were noted:

    1. Study sample size was small and limited to a single centre for the present study. Future prospective and randomized controlled trials in a multi-centric study design are recommended.

    2. The timeframe of the present study was short, and the long-term stability of the changes could not be ascertained. Studies with long-term follow-up of changes after fixed functional appliance therapy are indicated.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the present study, it can be concluded that:

    1. The null hypothesis was rejected due to changes observed in skeletal, dental, soft tissue and airway parameters following treatment with AdvanSync TM 2 FFA.

    2. AdvanSync TM 2 proved to be effective in the correction of Skeletal Class II malocclusion in growing patients.

    3. Skeletal Class II correction with AdvanSync TM 2 was primarily by dentoalveolar changes and limited skeletal changes.

    4. AdvanSync TM 2 produced improvement in facial esthetics as examined by the soft-tissue changes.

    5. Improvements in linear airway cephalometric parameters were noted post-AdvanSync TM 2 therapy.

Source of Funding

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1 

JA Brunelle M Bhat JA Lipton Prevalence and Distribution of Selected Occlusal Characteristics in the US Population, 1988-1991J Dent Res19967570619

2 

WR Proffit HW Fields LJ Moray Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in the United States: estimates from the NHANES III surveyInt J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg199813297106

3 

RE Moyers ML Riolo KE Guire RL Wainright ML Bookstein Differential diagnosis of Class II malocclusionsAm J Orthod198078547794

4 

BM Dischinger Skeletal Class II Case Presentation: Utilization of the AdvanSync 2 Appliance. APOS Trends Orthod2018816874

5 

A Jewair Ts Preston CB Moll EM Dischinger A comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusionAngle Orthod201282590721

6 

S Jayachandran WA Wiltshire SM Hayasaki F Pinheiro Comparison of AdvanSync and intermaxillary elastics in the correction of Class II malocclusions: A retrospective clinical studyAm J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2016150697988

7 

A Somaskandhan K Suresh S Boovaraghavan D Vijayalakshmi Management of Skeletal Class-II Malocclusion Using Advansync 2: A Case SeriesMedico-Leg Update2020204223375

8 

VF Zymperdikas V Koretsi SN Papageorgiou MA Papadopoulos Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysisEur J Orthod201638211339

9 

N Mcguinness Fixed functional appliances show definite skeletal and dental changes in the short termEur J Orthod201638212735

10 

P Cozza T Baccetti L Franchi L Toffol JA Mcnamara Mandibular Changes Produced by Functional Appliances in Class II Malocclusion: A Systematic ReviewAm J Orthod Dentofac Orthop20061295599600

11 

N Pandis Sample calculations for comparison of 2 meansAm J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2012141451921

12 

F Ghaffar JA Akhtar O Mughal AT Shahid R Shafique Comparative Analysis of Dentoskeletal Changes of the Twin Block Appliance and the AdvanSync2 Appliance in Treatment of Skeletal Class-II Malocclusion in Pakistani Population: A Randomized Clinical TrialEur J Dent20221636807

13 

R Nucera A Lo Giudice L Rustico G Matarese MA Papadopoulos G Cordasco Effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with functional appliances on maxillary growth in the short term: A systematic review and meta-analysisAm J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2016149560011

14 

G Cacciatore A Ugolini C Sforza O Gbinigie A Plüddemann Long-term effects of functional appliances in treated versus untreated patients with Class II malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysisPLoS One2019149e0221624

15 

A Bhonsale S Ashtekar J Gajapurada A Ranjan R Kulshreshta Evaluation of dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes in class II individuals using advansync 2 fixed functional class II corrector- A clinical studyInt J Dent Sci2022151e33399

16 

K Kaushik MS Sidhu S Grover Comparative Three Dimensional Evaluation of Dentoskeletal Parameters using AdvanSync & Herbst Appliance in Class II Malocclusion: -A Randomized Controlled Trial‖World J Dent202213322861

17 

MH El Mofty SA Ibrahim OS El-Shall WA Tawfik Evaluation of Dentoskeletal Changes Accompanying the Treatment of Class II Malocclusion by Advansync Appliance versus Intermaxillary Coil Spring Mechanics. Al-Azhar Dent J Girls2018537383

18 

Al-Jewair Ts Preston CB Moll EM Dischinger T A comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusionAngle Orthod201282590721

19 

W Pyarilal S Mathew M Ameen J Shetty AG Sunny Comparative evaluation of the skeletal effects of Advansync2 and Advansync2 used with Miniscrew anchorageAnn Romanian Soc Cell Biol2021163258



jats-html.xsl


This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International, which allows others to remix, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article History

Received : 26-03-2024

Accepted : 02-05-2024


View Article

PDF File   Full Text Article


Downlaod

PDF File   XML File   ePub File


Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

Article DOI

https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jco.2024.065


Article Metrics






Article Access statistics

Viewed: 257

PDF Downloaded: 19