A long-term evaluation of treated Class II division 2 malocclusions: a retrospective study model analysis

Abstract

Pre-treatment, end of treatment, and post-retention study models of 30 subjects with a Class II division 2 malocclusion were assessed, after a period of at least 3 years, in order to evaluate the long-term changes in occlusion, alignment, and arch dimensions. Molar relationship correction was found to be stable after retention. There were no variables which could be used to establish a prognosis of vertical stability. Over-correction of overbite was seen to relapse. Ten per cent of the cases showed unacceptable anterior maxillary irregularities after retention. Mandibular arch width and length usually showed a decrease after retention. An increase in lower intercanine width and arch length achieved by orthodontic treatment always relapsed. This relapse was associated with post-retention mandibular irregularity and crowding. Nine cases (30 per cent) showed an unacceptable degree of mandibular irregularity after retention. Pre-treatment crowding in the mandible showed a relationship with post-retention lower irregularity and crowding. There was a correlation between the number of years which had elapsed after retention, overbite relapse and post-retention mandibular irregularity.

Relapse of orthodontically corrected deepbites in accordance with growth pattern

“…The mean post-retention duration in this study was 15 years, with the minimum being 8.6 years. In a similar study, Canut & Arias (1999) observed a mean overbite correction of 3.5 ± 1.8 mm in 30 Class II division 2 subjects during active orthodontic treatment, which relapsed 0.9 ± 1.2 mm during the post-retention period (mean duration = 7 years). Preston, Maggard, Lampasso et al (2008) found a statistically significant, but clinically insignificant, amount of relapse after levelling the Curve of Spee (COS) in deep bite patients.…”

“…This lower incisor collapse back to their original, more retroclined position would definitely result in a deepening of the overbite. In their retrospective study of thirty Class II division 2 subjects, Canut & Arias (1999) found a statistically significant correlation (r = 0.52, p < 0.01) between post-retention lower crowding and post-retention overbite increase, although this association was weaker than expected.…”

“…Data for the Dolicocephalic Group 56 Table 7. Significant intergroup changes during orthodontic treatment 59 There have been many studies that have attempted to identify how the dentition, dentoalveolar and skeletal bone, and facial soft tissues respond immediately following orthodontic treatment, as well as during the years that follow the removal of retention appliances (Simons & Joondeph, 1973;Little, Riedel & Årtun, 1988;Little, 1990;Harris, 3 relapse (Engel, Damerell, McAlpine et al, 1980;Berg, 1983;Dake & Sinclair, 1989;Hirschfelder & Hertrich, 1990;Hirschfelder & Fleischer-Peters, 1992;Canut & Arias, 1999;Kim & Little, 1999;Al-Buraiki, Sadowsky & Schneider, 2005;Schutz-Fransson, Bjerklin & Lindsten, 2006;Ferrazzini, 2008;Preston, Maggard, Lampasso et al, 2008).…”

Extraction treatment of a Class II division 2 malocclusion with mandibular posterior discrepancy and changes in stomatognathic function

“…1 The important considerations in orthodontic treatment of adult malocclusion include the decision regarding extraction of teeth and the improvement of a deep bite. The decision should be planned according to arch length discrepancy, stability after orthodontic treatment, and the anteroposterior position of the incisors in relation to the lips.…”

Estabilidade da relação molar após o tratamento sem extração da má oclusão de classe II

“…Outros ainda avaliam a estabilidade da Classe II associando-a a fatores com a recidiva do apinhamento ântero-inferior, do comprimento do arco, das distâncias intercaninos e intermolares, do overbite e do overjet (ÅRTUN; GAROL; LITTLE, 1996;BISHARA et al, 1994a;BUSATO, 2003;CREPALDI, 2005;SCHWARZE, 1995;SCHWARZE, 1996;NAHÁS, 2000;NASHED;REYNOLDS, 1989;SHIELDS;LITTLE;CHAPKO, 1985;SIQUEIRA et al, 1999). Há avaliações cefalométricas e em modelos, ou em ambos (BINDA et al, 1994;BISHARA et al, 1994b;BIRKELAND et al, 1997;CANUT;ARIAS, 1999;CIGER;AKSU;GERMEÇ, 2005;ALEXANDER, 1996a;ALEXANDER, 1996b;HERZBERG, 1973;KIM et al, 2000;ORMISTON et al, 2005;OTUYEMI;JONES, 1995;CRAWFORD, 2000). Outras avaliações abordam as diferenças com relação à época do tratamento, ou seja, em pacientes adolescentes e adultos (HARRIS; MCREYNOLDS;LITTLE, 1991;MIYAZAKI et al, 1998).…”