Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of reducing severe overjet in Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion between Activator and the EF (Functional Education) class II standard in treating. Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted on a total of ̉60 patients with an Angle Class II, division 1 malocclusion (ANB angle ≥ 4°, basic normal maxillary status), and an overjet of ≥ 6 mm in the developmental stage (CS1-CS3) who were eligible for the study. Thus, the sample consisted of 60 subjects (29 girls and 31 boys) with a mean age of 9.7 ± 1.31 years. The investigators designed the study to treat patients, randomly assigning them by lottery to receive either an activator or the EF (Functional Education) class II standard. The activator versus the EF (Functional Education) class II standard group consisted of 30 subjects (17 girls, 13 boys) and 30 subjects (12 girls, 18 boys), respectively. The changes in skeletal, dental, and soft tissue were recorded before, at 6 months of treatment. Blinding was not performed. After six months of treatment, the study's endpoint was reached.
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
To compare the clinical effectiveness of reducing severe overjet in Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion between Activator and the EF (Functional Education) class II standard in treating.
Timeframe: 6 months