Objectives:The study was aimed to evaluate the pharyngeal airway linear measurements of untreated skeletal class II subjects with normal facial vertical pattern in prognathic maxilla with orthognathic mandible and orthognathic maxilla with retrognathic mandible.Materials and method:the sample comprised of lateral Cephalograms of two groups (30 each) of class II malocclusion variants. Group 1 comprised of class II malocclusion with prognathic maxilla and orthognathic mandible, whereas group 2 comprised of class II malocclusion with orthognathic maxilla and retrognathic mandible. Each group was traced for the linear measurements of the pharyngeal airway like the oropharynx, nasopharynx and soft palate. The obtained data was subjected to independent t test and the Mann Whitney test to check the difference between the two groups and within the groups respectively.Results:there was significant difference between all the linear measurements at the soft palate region and the distance between the tip of soft palate to its counter point on the pharyngeal wall in oropharynx region (p-ppm).Conclusion:the pharyngeal airway for class II malocclusion with various combination in an average growth pattern adult showed significant difference. The present results suggested, that the pharyngeal airway space might be the etiological factor for different sagittal growth pattern of the jaws and probable usage of different growth modification appliance can influence the pharyngeal airway.

BACKGROUND This study was conducted to determine angular changes of maxillary canine in en masse retraction of anterior teeth in a new modified power arm with a conventional intraoral anchorage unit compared to a mini-implant anchorage in the first premolar extraction case. We wanted to compare angular changes of maxillary canine between modified conventional anchorage with a power arm and titanium mini-implant anchorage in en masse retraction. METHODS A total of 15 participants requiring maxillary first premolar extraction was selected for this study. In each participant, the en mass retraction was carried out with miniimplants on one side & modified conventional anchorage with a power arm on the other side. The choice of mode of retraction on the right and the left side was done based on the coin flip method. Angular position of the maxillary canine was evaluated on orthopantomogram (OPG) & diagnostic cast. RESULTS A mean disto-palatal rotation observed post retraction was of 9° on the conventional anchorage side & 9.86° on the mini-implant anchorage side. A mean difference in maxillary canine angulations post retraction was 1.13° on the conventional anchorage side and 0.93° on the mini-implant side. An increase in angle suggested the tipping of canine teeth. The difference was very small which was not statistically & clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS There was no difference in the type of tooth movement during retraction by miniimplant and power arm suggesting minimal variation in teeth movement in the anterior region. So, the choice mainly depends on the type of the anchorage required in the given clinical situation. KEY WORDS Anchorage, Mini-Implant, Power Arm, Type of Tooth Movement

No abstract

No abstract

The most prevalent malocclusion seen in day-to-day practice is Class II division 1 malocclusion. Most patients with malocclusions in class II division 1 have an underlying skeletal difference between the maxilla and the mandible. The treatment of skeletal class II division 1 depends on the patient's age, the ability of growth potential, the seriousness of malocclusion, and the patient's adherence to treatment. Myofunctional equipment can be successfully used to treat rising patients with deficient mandible class II division 1 malocclusion. This case report shows a focus on Class II Division 1 care due to mandibular deficiency using modified bionator appliances accompanied by fixed mechanotherapy with growth modification approach. Class II Division 1 is one of the most widely encountered form of malocclusion in human populations. The common characteristic of Class II Div 1 malocclusion in growing children is mandibular retrusion, according to Dr. James McNamara.1 The prevalence of Skeletal Class II malocclusion is 15 % of the world's total population. Underlying difference between Maxillary & Mandibular jaw makes the Class II Div 1 malocclusion more complex than it appears. It’s due to a contribution of only maxilla, or only mandible, or a combination of both. The treatment of Class II division 1 relies on the patient's age, growth ability, degree of malocclusion, and patient compliance with therapy.1,2 The cases with retrognathic mandible must be addressed by altering the direction & amount of mandibular growth by using functional appliances.3 The Bionator is a tooth-borne appliance that significantly changes dental and skeletal component of the face through a repositioning of mandible in a more protrusive & balanced way, selective eruption of teeth and profile enhancement.4-7 The Balters Bionator was first introduced in 1960 by Wilhelm Balters as a functional appliance & still one of the most widely used removable appliances for correction of mandibular retrognathism.8 In functional orthopaedics, all aspects of genetically determined individual growth patterns are important, most particularly time, potential, and growth direction. Although during the prepubertal phase there is limited skeletal development, substantial growth occurs during puberty, but with great individual variation. To prevent damage to erupting teeth and to normalize jaw growth, early functional orthopaedic intervention in the prepubertal phase is used.9,10,11 The purpose of this case report is to illustrate how satisfactory results were obtained in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion with modified Bionator in young patients. The positive facial, dental and cephalometric improvements are also illustrated, with the aid of proper diagnosis, amplified by excellent patient cooperation in case selection.

Introduction: It is often difficult to locate Point A in a lateral cephalogram due to operational errors. Faulty identification of PointA can lead to erroneous measurement and faulty diagnosis.Objective: To identify nearest alternative maxillary apical base landmark for Point A substitutions given by different authors.Materials & Method: A cross sectional study was conducted on thirty good quality lateral cephalograms, which were appraisedfor skeletal Class I with the help of parameters angle ANB, WITS appraisal and Beta angle. Only those lateral cephalogramswere selected where Point A was easily identified. Landmarks: Sella (S), Nasion (N), Point A and three substitution points Y, L, Xwere traced. Angles formed by SN with Point A (Angle SNA) and three substitution points (Angle SNY, SNX, SNL) were measured.Correlation of angle SNA with angles SNY, SNX and SNL were derived.Result: A mean value of 82.8o ±1.9o, 83.1o ±1.8o, 78.3o ±2.9o and 78.7o ±2.7o for Angle’s SNA, SNY, SNL and SNX respectivelywas observed. A statistically significant correlation was observed between angles SNA and SNY, SNL, SNX; and strong positivecorrelation was observed with angle SNY.Conclusion: Point Y is the most nearing maxillary apical base landmark to Point A. Hence maxillary apical base landmark canbe substituted by Point Y where identification of point A is not obvious.

No abstract

No abstract