A Comparison Between Van Beek Headgear Activator And Andresen Activator In Orthodontic Treatment Of Class Ⅱ Division 1 Cases: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

Objective: Functional orthopedic appliances are orthodontic devices that used to modify mandibular posture by applying forces to muscles and soft tissues, which influence skeletal and dental structures correspondingly They are effective in treating Class II Division 1 malocclusions where the maxilla is too far forward relative to the mandible. or the mandible is too far backward to the maxilla. The aim of this work was to compare the treatment results when treating Class II division 1 malocclusion using the Van Beek-Headgear Activator combination (vBHGA) appliance versus using the Andresen activator.

Methods: This randomized clinical study was conducted on 24 patients, aged from 8 to 13 years old, with Skeletal class II division 1 with overjet > 5mm,skeletal growth was assessed by using cervical vertebral maturation stage assessment (CVMS).Two patients dropped out and Patients were divided into two equal groups according to the intervention appliances: Group A: 11 patients received Van-Beek activator with cervical-pull headgear. and Group B: 11 patients received Andresen activator.

Results: Both groups showed significant skeletal improvements, including increased SNB mandibular length (S-Go, N-Me, Effective Mandibular Length) and decreased ANB ,Gonial Angle, with no significant changes in SelANB, Gonialine (SN)-GoMe, ANS-Me, or Maxillary Length. Dental changes differed: Group A showed notable mandibular incisor movement, while Group B had more pronounced maxillary incisor changes.

Conclusions: Andresen activator and vBHGA corrected Class II div 1 malocclusion, improving mandibular advancement, A-nasion-B point angle (ANB), Wit’s, and facial/dental parameters, with vBHGA showing greater mandibular changes, particularly in length and vertical dimensions.