A comparative evaluation of Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion treatment effects using an activator versus an EF Line® preformed appliance in the Vietnamese population: a randomized controlled trial

Background: The study aimed to evaluate skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion after 6 months of treatment with a conventional functional appliance (the Activator) versus a prefabricated myofunctional appliance (PMA). Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted on 60 patients diagnosed with Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion (ANB ≥4◦, normal maxillary position) and an overjet ≥6 mm. All participants were in the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) stages 1–3 (CS1–CS3). The sample included 29 girls and 31 boys with a mean age of 9.7 ± 1.31 years. Patients were randomly allocated by lottery to receive either an Activator or a PMA, with 30 subjects in each group. Skeletal, dental, and soft tissue parameters were recorded at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. Blinding was not performed. Results: Both appliances produced significant skeletal improvements. In the Activator group, ANB angle and Wits appraisal were reduced by −1.03◦ and −2.09 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). Comparable reductions were observed in the PMA group (0.73◦ and 1.68 mm; p < 0.001). Mandibular length, as well as anterior and posterior facial heights, increased significantly in both groups (p < 0.001). The Activator demonstrated greater increases in mandibular length and posterior facial height (p = 0.034 and p = 0.035), whereas the PMA resulted in significantly larger increases in Pg–Pg′ distance and total chin thickness (p = 0.039 and p = 0.037). Conclusions: Both the Activator and PMA were effective in reducing overjet and improving skeletal and dental relationships in growing patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. The Activator produced slightly greater skeletal effects on mandibular growth, while the PMA showed more pronounced soft tissue changes, supporting its role as a functional and habit-modifying appliance. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT06566027 (Retrospective registration).

Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion; Activator; EF Line® appliance; Myofunctional appliance; Functional appliance; Severe overjet; Vietnamese population

[1] Vu DA, Vu HM, Nguyen QT, Vu HM. Malocclusion among children in Vietnam: prevalence and associations with different habits. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research. 2024; 14: 112–115.

[2] Čirgić E, Kjellberg H, Hansen K. Treatment of large overjet in Angle Class II: division 1 malocclusion with Andresen activators versus prefabricated functional appliances-a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2016; 38: 516–524.

[3] Tomblyn T, Rogers M, Andrews L II, Martin C, Tremont T, Gunel E, et al. Cephalometric study of Class II Division 1 patients treated with an extended-duration, reinforced, banded Herbst appliance followed by fixed appliances. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2016; 150: 818–830.

[4] Kalbande B, Jadhav VV, Reche A, Nerurkar S, Ghulaxe Y. Treatment of skeletal class II division 1 using twin block myofunctional appliance. Cureus. 2023; 15: e47713.

[5] Pawar R, Nath SK, Kumar PK, Patel K, Arvind M, Shah A, et al. Removable versus fixed myo-functional appliances in class II malocclusion among Indians. Bioinformation. 2023; 19: 1318–1323.

[6] Dibiase A, Cobourne M, Lee R. The use of functional appliances in contemporary orthodontic practice. British Dental Journal. 2015; 218: 123–128.

[7] Koretsi V, Zymperdikas V, Papageorgiou S, Papadopoulos MA. Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2015; 37: 418–434.

[8] Kumar S, Hassan N, Anjan R, Kaushik H, Shaikh S. Myofunctional appliances. Book rivers: Lucknow. 2021.

[9] Wishney M, Darendeliler MA, Dalci O. Myofunctional therapy and prefabricated functional appliances: an overview of the history and evidence. Australian Dental Journal. 2019; 64: 135–144.

[10] Xiaowei W, Haoran L, Xuehui C, Xiaogang P. Analysis of prefabricated myofunctional appliances with different overjet and bumper designs: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24: 561.

[11] Mohammed H, Čirgić E, Rizk MZ, Vandevska-Radunovic V. Effectiveness of prefabricated myofunctional appliances in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion: a systematic review. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2020; 42: 125–134.

[12] Idris G, Hajeer MY, Al-Jundi A. Soft- and hard-tissue changes following treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion with Activator versus Trainer: a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2019; 41: 21–28.

[13] Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA III. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2006; 129: 599.e1–e12; discussion e1–e6.

[14] Perinetti G, Primožič J, Franchi L, Contardo L. Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in pre-pubertal and pubertal class ii patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies. PLOS ONE. 2015; 10: e0141198.

[15] Madian AM, Elfouly D. Cephalometric changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions after functional treatment with twin block versus myobrace appliances in developing skeletal class II patients: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23: 998.

[16] Sivakumar A, Nalabothu P, Thanh HN, Antonarakis GS. A comparison of craniofacial characteristics between two different adult populations with class ii malocclusion—a cross-sectional retrospective study. Biology. 2021; 10: 438.

[17] Saghiri MA, Eid J, Tang C, Freag P. Factors influencing different types of malocclusion and arch form—a review. Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2020; 122: 185–191.

[18] Alouini O, Rollet D. Morphological and functional peri-oral changes during early treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions using EF Line® functional education devices. L’ Orthodontie Francaise. 2018; 89: 289–306. (In French)

[19] Le NKN, Le NL, Lu TCB. Clinical and radiographic characteristics of class ii division 1 malocclusion patients treated with functional appliances at Ho Chi Minh City Dental Hospital. Cantho Journal of Medicine and Pharmacy. 2024; 80: 7–14. (In Vietnamese)

[20] Ravera S, Rollet D, Cugliari G, Deregibus A, Castroflorio T. Interceptive treatment effects of EF preformed appliance in pre-pubertal and pubertal skeletal Class II growing patients: a retrospective controlled study. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2020; 21: 123–128.

[21] Chen LR, Lai CL, Chang IT, Hsu CL, Liu JF, Kao CT. Evaluation of skeletal and dentoalveolar changes in class II division I pediatric patients receiving myofunctional appliance therapy: a preliminary study. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. 2022; 121: 2028–2034.

[22] Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA III. The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Seminars in Orthodontics. 2005; 11: 119–129.

[23] Batista KB, Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison JE, O’Brien KD. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018; 3: CD003452.

[24] Bilgiç F, Başaran G, Hamamci O. Comparison of Forsus FRD EZ and Andresen activator in the treatment of class II, division 1 malocclusions. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2015; 19: 445–451.

[25] ShanthiniPriya A, Haritha PS, Sridevi P. Temporomandibular joint and skeletal changes in response to Twin block and Advansync appliance therapy—a three dimensional study. APOS Trends in Orthodontics. 2023; 13: 197–204.

[26] Cattaneo PM, Holm A, Yung AKC, Isidor S, Cornelis MA. A three-dimensional evaluation of skeletal and dentoalveolar changes in growing class II patients after functional appliance therapy: a retrospective case-control study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13: 1315.

[27] Moro A, Mattos CFP, Borges SW, Flores-Mir C, Topolski F. Stability of Class II corrections with removable and fixed functional appliances: a literature review. Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists. 2020; 9: 56–67.

[28] Elhamouly Y, El-Housseiny AA, Ismail HA, Habashy LME. Myofunctional trainer versus twin block in developing class II division I malocclusion: a randomized comparative clinical trial. Dentistry Journal. 2020; 8: 44.

[29] Xie L, Wang P, Wu J. Soft and hard tissue changes following treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion with twin-block and myofunctional appliance: a pilot study. Chinese Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2020; 2: 217–227. (In Chinese)

[30] M O, Memarpour M, zarif najafi H, Heidari S. Comparative study of the bionator and Multi-P appliances in the treatment of classII malocclusion: a randomized cephalometric trial. Galen Medical Journal. 2013; 2: 1–11.

[31] Das U, Reddy D. Treatment effects produced by preorthodontic trainer appliance in patients with class II division I malocclusion. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2010; 28: 30–33.

[32] Bollhalder J, Hänggi MP, Schätzle M, Markic G, Roos M, Peltomäki TA. Dentofacial and upper airway characteristics of mild and severe class II division 1 subjects. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2013; 35: 447–453.

[33] Ivorra-Carbonell L, Montiel-Company JM, Almerich-Silla JM, Paredes-Gallardo V, Bellot-Arcís C. Impact of functional mandibular advancement appliances on the temporomandibular joint—a systematic review. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral, Cirugia Bucal. 2016; 21: e565–e572.

[34] Kumar MD, Sathyanarayana HP, Kailasam V. Effectiveness of functional mandibular advancer in patients with class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics. 2023; 36: 270–279.

[35] Cardarelli F, Drago S, Rizzi L, Bazzani M, Pesce P, Menini M, et al. Effects of removable functional appliances on the dentoalveolar unit in growing patients. Medicina. 2024; 60: 746.

[36] Chu CS, Marizan Nor M, Mohamed AM, Mohd Hadi Pritam H. Hard and soft tissue shape variation and changes in Class II division 1 malocclusion during orthodontic treatment: a geometric morphometric analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23: 931.

[37] Maetevorakul S, Viteporn S. Factors influencing soft tissue profile changes following orthodontic treatment in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Progress in Orthodontics. 2016; 17: 13.

[38] Alhumadi A, Al-Khafaji TJ, Hussein Alyassiri AM, Alhamadi WW. Gender differences in lower facial soft tissue thickness among different skeletal patterns, based on soft tissue cephalometric analysis. Journal of Orthodontic Science. 2022; 11: 54.

[39] Tentolouri E, Antonarakis GS, Georgiakaki I, Kiliaridis S. Masseter muscle thickness and treatment outcomes in children with Class II division 1 malocclusion. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2021; 22: 298–302.

[40] Pavičić D, Svirčić A, Gašparović B, Šimunović L, Crnković S, Katić V. Effect of the functional appliances on skeletal, dentoalveolar, and facial soft tissue characteristics. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15: 7529.