The effects of Frankel's function regulator (FR-4) therapy on the treatment of Angle Class I skeletal anterior open bite malocclusion. Anterior open bite treatment with magnets.
The present study attempts to evaluate cephalometrically the effects of Fränkel's function regulator (FR-4) appliance on the treatment of Angle Class I skeletal anterior open bite malocclusion. Forty Turkish children (26 girls and 14 boys), with Angle Class I skeletal anterior open bite, were randomly divided into two groups of 20 (13 girls and 7 boys). Patients who had not undergone treatment served as the control group, whereas a second group was treated with lip-seal training and the FR-4 appliance. Chronologic mean decimal age at initial period of the investigation was 8.7 years in the treated group, and 8.9 years in the control group. Treatment and observation periods were 2 years. Investigation was carried out on lateral cephalograms taken before and after the study period. The results indicate that a spontaneous downward and backward growth direction of the mandible observed in the control group could be changed to a upward and forward direction by FR-4 therapy. The skeletal anterior open bite was successfully corrected through upward and forward mandibular rotation. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of repelling magnets on the treatment of anterior open bite and compare them with the effects of acrylic posterior bite-blocks. Twenty patients, aged 9-16 years with skeletal anterior open bite, were randomly divided into two groups. In one group the patients wore posterior repelling magnet splints and in the other they wore acrylic posterior bite-blocks of the same thickness as the magnet splints. The patients were instructed to use their appliance as much as possible (the minimum accepted being 18 hours daily) during a 6-month period. Dental casts, intra-oral photos, and lateral cephalograms were taken before and after treatment, and the patients were also examined regularly to identify the development of any craniomandibular disorders. In the first group, the dental and skeletal vertical relation responded quickly to the magnet treatment. The open bite was generally closed in just under 4 months, especially in patients in early mixed dentition. Spacing in the labial segments decreased in some cases, while slight crowding was induced in others. Transverse problems, i.e. unilateral cross-bite, sometimes followed by scissor-bite on the opposite side, was observed in those patients who were in the early mixed dentition and had used the magnets intensively. The patients who wore acrylic posterior bite-blocks also showed improvement in the dental and skeletal vertical relationships, especially during the first months. This was followed by a 'plateau' period. No transverse problems were found in these patients.
There is weak evidence that the interventions FR-4 with lip-seal training and palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup are able to correct anterior open bite. Given that the trials included have potential bias, these results must be viewed with caution. Recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made based only on the results of these trials. More randomised controlled trials are needed to elucidate the interventions for treating anterior open bite.