Response to activator treatment in Class II malocclusions.

A clinical study was designed to disclose the effects of activator treatment in the correction of Class II malocclusions. The rationale for the use of the activator appliance was based on the premise that correction of distocclusion can be achieved by inhibition of forward growth of the maxilla, inhibition of mesial migration of maxillary teeth, inhibition of maxillary alveolar height increase and extrusion of mandibular molars, increased growth of the mandible, anterior relocation of the glenoid fossa, mesial movement of mandibular teeth, and combinations of these effects. The appliance, as designed for this study, could potentially have an effect on all of these factors. Measurements were obtained from cephalometric head films obtained at 6-month intervals. Matched-pairs analyses of control versus treatment change after 6 months and after 1 year of treatment were done on 36 and 29 pairs, respectively. Pretreatment versus treatment changes were analyzed on 33 subjects by means of the spline regression analysis; posttreatment versus treatment changes were analyzed on 18 subjects by means of the Student Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test. The matched-pairs analyses of mean values demonstrated significant reduction in forward growth of the maxilla, uprighting of the maxillary incisors, reduced overjet, leveling of the mandibular occlusal plane, improved molar relationship, downward and forward relocation of the glenoid fossae, increased advancement of all mandibular structures, increased face profile angle, and increased lower face height. The two longitudinal analyses yielded similar findings, but some differences were noted. Because rather severe dental malocclusions were corrected, the slight average inhibition of maxillary growth and the anterior relocation of glenoid fossae alone could not account for the correction of the Class II dental arch relationship. It was therefore concluded that, in addition to the statistically significant changes, smaller changes occurred in several areas without being consistent enough or of a large enough magnitude to become statistically significant in the analyses of mean values. Comparison of group averages may mask treatment effects that significantly contribute to the correction of malocclusions in individual cases.