Predictive factors of sagittal stability after treatment of Class II malocclusions

Abstract

Objective: To determine the existence of factors permitting the prediction of sagittal stability after orthodontic treatment in patients with Angle Class II malocclusion. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 2015. Inclusion criteria were longitudinal studies with at least 10 subjects investigating associations between at least one factor and stability, with an average minimum follow-up period of 2 years; stability measured using posttreatment sagittal dental changes; and orthodontic treatment including removable and/or fixed appliances with or without extractions. Two reviewers independently selected and assessed the quality of the articles. Results: The search strategy resulted in 1372 articles, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria. Large changes during treatment in molar and canine relationships were the only two factors found to be positively associated with relapse, but with limited evidence. Fourteen factors were found not to be predictive of relapse, also with limited evidence. These factors included treatment characteristics, patient pretreatment characteristics, and final posttreatment characteristics. Conclusions: There is currently limited evidence to support the influence of factors predictive of sagittal stability following Class II malocclusion treatment. More high-quality prospective studies are needed, and functional factors possibly affecting relapse also need to be further assessed.

The Effect of Local Pharmacological Agents in Acceleration of Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review

“…A quality assessment was performed based on the method described by Bondemark et al [12, 13]. Following this method, studies were assigned to the grading of A, B, & C. A was considered high-quality evidence, B was a moderate value of evidence and C was considered the low value of evidence.…”

Craniofacial growth predictors for class II and III malocclusions: A systematic review

“…Although the systems proposed by Buschang et al (1986) and Turchetta et al (2007) could be good predictors, there would be other factors influencing the success of treatment in class II malocclusions and not considered by them. Based on the above, there is evidence suggesting that the risk of recurrence or lack of stability in class II treatment could be attributed to a severe pre‐treatment sagittal relationship (greatly increased overjet and a class II cusp ratio in molars and canines) and even the timing of the treatment would not have a greater influence on recurrence (Wins et al, 2016), which would not be considered in the proposed prediction systems.…”

Treatment of malocclusions in the temporal period of bite, children with speech disorders by means of myogymnastics and face tapping.

“…The truncated bridle of the tongue and its irregular articulation lead to the deformation of the dental alveolar arches, in particular to the open bite. Such anomalies of the structure of the cavity of the mouth as the shape of the palate, the position of the teeth, the shape and position of the tongue in rest, and other functions of the dental-jaw system (13,14) play a special role in clarity of pronunciation of sounds. The interrelation and interdependence of malocclusions and articulatory disorders were emphasized by V. D. Kuroyedova and her coauthors (4) in his studies, noting that the anomalies of the appliance of articulation sharply distort the pronunciation and speech-work without orthodontic correction turns out to be ineffective.…”