Comparison of 2 types of treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusions: a 5-year post-retention analysis

Abstract

Aim: To compare 2 types of treatment for Class II malocclusion assessing mandibular behavior in subjects submitted to full orthodontic treatment with standard edgewise appliance and cervical headgear (Kloehn appliance) and those who used cervical headgear in the first period and with full orthodontic appliance in the second period. Methods: The sample consisted of 80 children treated with either cervical headgear combined with full fixed appliances (n=40, group 1), or with cervical headgear at first (n=40, group 2). In both groups, lateral cephalometric radiographs were compared with those made at the beginning of treatment, at its end and at 5-year post-retention phase, in order to quantify the cephalometric measures (8 angular and 3 linear), presenting the mandibular behavior in the antero-posterior and vertical directions. All patients were treated with no extraction and no use of Class II intermaxillary elastics during the full orthodontic treatment. Results: In both groups, the effective treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion did not interfere in the direction and amount of growth of mandibular condyles and remodeling at the lower border, with no influence on the anti-clockwise rotation of the mandible. The mandibular growth also was observed after the orthodontic treatment, suggesting that it is influenced by genetic factors. Conclusions: These observations may lead to the speculation that growing patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion and low mandibular plane are conducive to a good treatment and long-term stability with one or two periods of treatment.

Evaluating the Agreement between the Twin-Block Appliance and a New Low-Cost Arch Development Appliance in Changing the Mandibular Length

“…Moreover, there was a study to compare two types of treatment for class II malocclusions assessing mandibular length behaviour in patients who attend for full treatment with standard edgewise and cervical headgear appliances and who used cervical headgear in the first phase and full orthodontic appliances in the second phase. In both groups, the effective treatment to class II malocclusion did not interfere in the direction and amount of growth of mandibular and no influence on the anticlockwise rotation of the mandible [29].…”

Comparison of two types of biomecanics for deep overbite correction

“…Maxillary incisor intrusion may be adequate to individuals who exhibit maxillary vertical excess, gum smile, lack of labial seal, short upper lip, increased inferior facial height and inclined occlusal plane [10][11][12] . It is indicated to persons with good facial harmony, normal occlusal plane or a little inclined and with excessive Spee curve in the mandibular arch 12 .…”

“…It is indicated to persons with good facial harmony, normal occlusal plane or a little inclined and with excessive Spee curve in the mandibular arch 12 . Posterior tooth extrusion is ideal for patients with hypodivergent facial pattern (short anterior facial height) redundant lips, excessive Spee curve, incisor exposition from moderate to minimal in the growth spurt phase.…”

“…Posterior tooth extrusion is ideal for patients with hypodivergent facial pattern (short anterior facial height) redundant lips, excessive Spee curve, incisor exposition from moderate to minimal in the growth spurt phase. This procedure will provide inferior facial height increase, mandibular plane opening, facial convexity increase and reduction of inferior lip projection 4,[10][11][12] .…”