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 5 mm (PBB5); posterior bite blocks 10 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 | ||||