Journal of Dental Sciences
Volume 4, Issue 2 , Pages 87-95, June 2009

Treatment of Angle Class II malocclusions with a newly modified bionator combined with headgear

College of Oral Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan

Received 5 February 2009; accepted 25 May 2009.

Article Outline

The bionator is one of the most commonly used functional appliances in treating Angle Class II division 1 malocclusions. However, the original type of bionator often causes lower incisor flaring and is limited in cases with mild crowding. There is little published literature on treating Angle Class II division 2 malocclusions using bionators. Our group suggested some modifications to the original-type bionator, including addition of an anterior resin cap, upper and lower labial bows, an expansion screw and a posterior resin wedge, to attempt to overcome limitations of the original design. This article shows our results on two male patients, one with an Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion with a large overjet and the other with an Angle Class II division 2 malocclusion. The treatment was completed using a newly modified bionator with no other fixed appliance and resulted in a decrease in facial convexity, a reduced overjet and overbite, ideal interincisal relationships, and a harmonious profile.

KEY WORDS:  bionator , Class II , malocclusion

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

 

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Ahn SJ , Kim JT , Nahm DS . Cephalometric markers to consider in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the bionator . Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop . 2001;119:578–586
  2. Balters W . Die Technik und Übung der allgemeinen und speziellen Bionator-Therapie . Quintessenz . 1964;15:77–85
  3. Tulloch JF , Phillips C , Proffit WR . Benefit of early Class II treatment: progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial . Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop . 1998;113:62–72 quiz 73–64.
  4. Bass NM . The aesthetic analysis of the face . Eur J Orthod . 1991;13:343–350
  5. McNamara JA . Functional determinants of craniofacial size and shape . Eur J Orthod . 1980;2:131–159
  6. Mamandras AH , Allen LP . Mandibular response to orthodontic treatment with the Bionator appliance . Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop . 1990;97:113–120
  7. Marschner JF , Harris JE . Mandibular growth and class II treatment . Angle Orthod . 1966;36:89–93
  8. Forsberg CM , Odenrick L . Skeletal and soft tissue response to activator treatment . Eur J Orthod . 1981;3:247–253
  9. De Almeida MR , Henriques JF , Ursi W . Comparative study of the Frankel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion . Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop . 2002;121:458–466
  10. Keeling SD , Wheeler TT , King GJ , et al.   Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear . Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop . 1998;113:40–50
  11. Mills JR . The effect of functional appliances on the skeletal pattern . Br J Orthod . 1991;18:267–275
  12. Toth LR , McNamara JA . Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Frankel compared with an untreated Class II sample . Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop . 1999;116:597–609
  13. Vargervik K , Harvold EP . Response to activator treatment in Class II malocclusions . Am J Orthod . 1985;88:242–251
  14. Almeida MR , Henriques JF , Almeida RR , Almeida-Pedrin RR , Ursi W . Treatment effects produced by the Bionator appliance. Comparison with an untreated Class II sample . Eur J Orthod . 2004;26:65–72

PII: S1991-7902(09)60013-1

doi:10.1016/S1991-7902(09)60013-1

Journal of Dental Sciences
Volume 4, Issue 2 , Pages 87-95, June 2009

Article Tools