Comparison of treatment effects from total arch distalization using modified C‐palatal plates versus maxillary premolar extraction in Class II patients with severe overjet

Abstract

Introduction This study aimed to compare the skeletodental and soft tissue changes with total arch distalization using a modified C‐palatal plate (MCPP) and maxillary first premolar extraction treatment in Class II malocclusion patients with severe overjet. Setting and sample population The sample consisted of 46 adult patients who had Class II Division 1 malocclusion with severe overjet; 25 of them received non‐extraction treatment with MCPPs (age, 22.5 ± 7.2 years), and 21 received maxillary first premolar extraction treatment (age 23.4 ± 6.5 years). Method A total of 26 variables were measured on pre‐ and post‐treatment lateral cephalograms. To evaluate the differences between pretreatment and post‐treatment in each group, t tests and Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests were used. To compare the amount of change between the two groups, MANOVA test was used. Results The overjet was significantly reduced in the MCPP and extraction groups by 4.8 mm and 5.4 mm, respectively. However, the two groups had no significant difference in the sagittal, vertical and angular changes of the maxillary incisors. In addition, regarding soft tissue changes, the MCPP and extraction groups showed an increased nasolabial angle of 7.5° and 9.4°, decreased upper lip to the true vertical line of 1.8 mm and 2.2 mm, respectively (P < .001). Conclusions There was no significant difference in the skeletal changes between the MCPP and extraction groups, and the reduction in overjet was similar in the groups. These results suggest that MCPP might be a viable treatment option for total arch distalization in Class II malocclusion patients with severe overjet.

Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes after total maxillary arch distalization using the casted palatal plate vs. buccal miniscrews: A randomized clinical trial

“…The plate group showed 4.33 mm of distalization of the maxillary rst molar, combined with 1.85 mm of intrusion and 3.10° of distal tipping. Previous studies also reported similar distalization, intrusion and distal tipping of U6 resulted by the application of MCPP in adults [22,38,40,[46][47][48]59].…”

“…Recently, the use of the modi ed C-palatal plate (MCPP) for maxillary arch distalization has been reported for Class II corrections in both adolescents and adults [25,37]. MCPPs showed a signi cant distalization of the maxillary rst molars by about 1.65 to 5.4 mm with 0.28 to 4.36 degrees of distal tipping [22,38,47,[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]]. Lee et al, in a retrospective clinical study, compared the treatment effects between palatal and buccally placed TADs, and showed signi cantly greater amounts of distalization and intrusion with a smaller amount of distal tipping of the maxillary rst molars using the MCPP [22].…”

Evaluation of the effect of extraction in comparison to distalization on the maxillary third molars in class II malocclusion: a retrospective study

“…Alfawaz et al [ 37 ] compared the effect of total arch distalization versus maxillary premolar extraction in Class II patients. They reported no significant differences regarding all skeletal and soft tissue treatment effects except for the maxillary first molar positional changes which were highly significantly between the groups.…”

Evaluation of modified C‐palatal plates on speech articulation using acoustic analysis

“…Recently, Kook et al 16–21 introduced the modified C‐palatal plate (MCPP) to provide skeletal anchorage that avoids the disadvantages of extraoral anchorage, but it can interfere with the proper linguopalatal contact and sound production, yet there have been no reports on MCPP inducing speech disturbances.…”

“…Nevertheless, significant individual variations were reported in compensatory mechanisms to overcome palatal speech perturbation effects. 15 Recently, Kook et al [16][17][18][19][20][21] introduced the modified C-palatal plate (MCPP) to provide skeletal anchorage that avoids the disadvantages of extraoral anchorage, but it can interfere with the proper linguopalatal contact and sound production, yet there have been no reports on MCPP inducing speech disturbances.…”