This article summarises recently updated guidelines produced by the Clinical Governance Directorate of the British Orthodontic Society through the Clinical Standards Committee of the Faculty of Dental Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons of England (FDSRCS) on the management of unerupted maxillary incisor teeth in children. The maxillary incisor teeth usually erupt in the early mixed dentition but eruption disturbances can occur and are often attributable to local factors. A failure of eruption will affect the developing occlusion and potentially influence psychological development of the child. The general principles of management for delayed eruption or impaction of these teeth is to ensure that adequate space exists in the dental arch and to remove any obstruction to eruption. Consideration should also be given to further promoting eruption through surgical exposure of the incisor, with or without subsequent orthodontic traction. A number of factors influence the decision-making process, including patient age, medical history, potential compliance, aetiology and position of the unerupted incisor. Treatment planning should be complemented by careful clinical assessment and the use of appropriate special investigations. To optimise the treatment outcome a multidisciplinary specialist approach is recommended.

Objectives: To compare dentoalveolar and skeletal changes in two groups of Class II division 1 patients treated with different designs of Clark's Twin Block (CTB), with (Group 1) or without (Group 2) an upper labial bow. Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics at the East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, UK. Sixty-two white subjects (aged 10-14 years at the start of treatment, minimum overjet . 6 mm, molar relationship at least ½ unit Class II) were recruited. Subjects were divided into age-and sex-matched pairs, were randomly allocated to treatment with either appliance design, and were treated for 12 months, at which time additional data were collected. Results: Sixty participants were available for final data collection. The two groups were well matched with respect to age (mean 12.5 years in Group 1; 12.3 years in Group 2). No statistical difference was noted between groups for any dentoalveolar or skeletal variables measured. Both groups experienced a reduction in overjet as a result of maxillary incisor retroclination, mandibular incisor proclination, and forward positioning of the pogonion. Maxillary molar distalization, mandibular molar mesialization, and ANB reduction also occurred in both groups. Conclusions: The addition of a maxillary labial bow to the CTB has no influence on dentoalveolar or skeletal changes, or on rate of overjet reduction, in relation to appliance therapy. (Angle Orthod.

No abstract

No abstract