Comparison of The Long Term Results of Activator and Headgear Treatment in Class II Malocclusion Individuals

Objective: In this study, it was aimed to investigate the long-term results of patients treated with activator or headgear appliances. Material and Method: Our study group included of 41 Class II patients (17 male, 24 female) who had been treated with fixed appliances following activator (19 subjects) or headgear (22 subjects), in control group there was 82 Class II patients (30 male, 52 female) who were not treated. Orthodontic casts and lateral cephalograms were taken from study group at pre-treatment (T0), after-treatment (T1) and long-term (T2). From control group patients, lateral cephalograms were taken at T0 and T1. Only lateral cephalograms were taken from the subjects in the cross-sectional control group. Results: The decrease in SNA Angle (p<0.05) in headgear group; the decrease in ANB angle (p<0.05) and the increase in SNB angle (p<0.05) in activator group were more prominent. No differences were observed between groups in long term regarding aforementioned parameteres. N-Me increased (p<0.01) more with headgear; this increase continued in the long-term. The increment in Go-Gn measurement was greater (p<0.001) with activator both at treatment and long term. Overjet reduction was more significant (p<0.05) with activator whereas no differences were observed in the long-term. Si-B' measurement increased (p<0.05) more with headgear however lower arch length discrepancy increased (p<0.05) more with activator in the long-term. Conclusion: While headgear is more effective on the maxilla and vertical dimension, activator is more effective on the mandible. The increase in Go-Gn measurement was significantly greater in activator, however ultimate size of the Go-Gn dimension was almost the same in both groups. Significant overjet reduction was achieved in both appliances treatment but some amount of relaps occured during long term.