Table 4 Summary of effects
Treatment modalities | Summary of effects | Reduction of open bite | Reduction of divergency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Rapid molar intruder (RMI) | Molar intrusion | Yes | Yes | |
Mandibular autorotation | ||||
Bite blocks | Magnetic bite block (MBB) | Incisors extrusion, molar intrusion | Yes | Yes |
Control of mandibular skeletal height | ||||
Mandibular autorotation | ||||
Lateral crossbite | ||||
More effective than spring loaded bite blocks | ||||
Faster and more effective than acrylic bite blocks | ||||
Spring-loaded bite block (SLBB) | Incisors extrusion, maxillary molar intrusion | Yes | Yes | |
Control of posterior dentoalveolar height | ||||
Mandibular autorotation | ||||
Tendency to break | ||||
Greater ramal inclination and molar intrusion than acrylic bite blocks | ||||
Posterior bite blocks 5Â mm (PBB5); posterior bite blocks 10Â mm (PBB10) | Incisive extrusion and lingual tipping, molar intrusion | Yes | Yes | |
Control of posterior dentoalveolar height | ||||
Mandibular autorotation | ||||
PBB5 and PBB10 are both effective | ||||
PBB10 produce greater mandibular sagittal growth and autorotation, increase of gonial angle | ||||
Quad-helix/crib (Q-H/C) | Stop sucking habits | Yes | Yes | |
Incisors extrusion and lingual tipping | ||||
More efficient than removable cribs since it does not need for compliance | ||||
Downward rotation of palatal plane and improvement of intermaxillary vertical relationships | ||||
Cribs or spurs | Fixed palatal crib (FPC) | More efficient than removable cribs since it does not need for compliance | Yes | Data in disagreement |
Removable palatal crib (RPC) | Just anterior dento-alveolar effects (extrusion and verticalization of maxillary and mandibular incisors) | Yes | Data in disagreement | |
Molar eruption not controlled | ||||
Skeletal effects depend on patient’s compliance | ||||
Spurs (BS) | Dentoalveolar effects | Yes | Yes | |
Vertical chin cup (VCC) | Reduction of open bite | Yes | Data in disagreement | |
Molar eruption not controlled | ||||
Skeletal effects depend on patient’s compliance | ||||
Functional appliances | Open bite bionator (OBB) | Useful for class II open bite malocclusions | Yes | Yes |
Control of maxillary molars extrusion | ||||
Improvement of intermaxillary vertical relationships | ||||
Fränkel appliance + lip seal exercises (FR + LSE) | Dentoalveolar effects, upper incisors lingual tipping | Yes | Data in disagreement | |
Stability if lips sealed without muscular straint | ||||
Data about skeletal effects are in disagreement | ||||
Teuscher appliance (A-HPH) | Effective for class II open bite malocclusions | Yes | Yes | |
Lingual tipping of maxillary incisors | ||||
Reduction of forward growth of the maxilla | ||||
Control of maxillary molars extrusion and mesialization | ||||
Increase of mandibular alveolar height | ||||