Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background and Objectives: The objective of this retrospective controlled study is to compare class II growing patients who underwent treatment with two different functional appliances: the Fraenkel regulator (FR-2), utilized as the control group, and the elastodontic device “Cranium Occluded Postural Multifunctional Harmonizers” (AMCOP), utilized as the test group. Materials and Methods: The study sample consisted of 52 patients with class II division I malocclusion (30 males, 22 females, mean age 8. 6 ± 1. 4 years) who were treated with the two different types of appliances: Group 1 (n = 27, mean age 8 7. 00, 9. 00 years, 12 females, 15 males) received treatment with AMCOP, while Group 2 (n = 25, mean age 9. 2 years 8. 20, 10. 00, 10 females, 15 males) received treatment with FR-2. The mean treatment duration for Group 1 was 28. 00 21. 50, 38. 00 months, while for Group 2 it was 23. 70 17. 80, 27. 40 months. Cephalometric analyses were performed on lateral cephalograms taken before treatment (T1) and after treatment (T2). Results: Significant intragroup differences were observed over time in Group 1 for 1^/PP. Similarly, significant intragroup differences were observed over time in Group 2 for SNB, ANB, and IMPA. Conclusions: Both treatment modalities resulted in the correction of class II malocclusion with dentoalveolar compensation, although the treatment duration with AMCOP tended to be longer on average.
Cardarelli et al. (Tue,) studied this question.