Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness and patient compliance regarding interceptive orthodontics, between a prefabricated functional appliance (PFA) and an Andersen Activator.The PFA appliance used was the TRAINER System™, a flexible appliance made of non-thermoplastic silicone (soft) or polyurethane (hard). The Andersen Activator is a functional acrylic appliance.The sample consisted in 20 subjects (10 girls,10 boys), mean age 10.5 years with a class II division 1 malocclusion and an overjet > 6mm. The patients were randomly selected for treatment with either PFA or AA. Overjet, overbite and lip seal were recorded before and every 3 months after the start of the treatment. The treatment was considered finished when the overjet reduced < 3mm. No significant differences were found in overjet and overbite reduction or lip seal between the two groups. The Activator caused less discomfort than the Trainer, and seemed to be more acceptable.
Keywords: acrylic; Andersen activator; silicone; trainer; myofunctional