Anterior open‐bite treatment through orthodontically driven corticotomy

Background: The treatment of Class II malocclusions has always been a subject of great interest for orthodontists. The use of distalization mechanics to correct Class II malocclusions is a common treatment modality. Many devices have been developed and used to distalize the maxillary molars and show positive clinical results. Aim of the Work: The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate of tooth movement on digital casts caused by distalization of maxillary molars using steel bar distalizer in the treatment of class II malocclusion. Materials and Methods: Twenty patients with age ranging from 15 to 30 years were recruited from the out-patient clinic of the Orthodontic Department of the Faculty of Dentistry Ain-Shams University. All patients required maxillary molar distalization as part of their orthodontic treatment plan. Impression for appliance fabrication was done then miniscrews were inserted after appliance cementation. The rate of maxillary first molar movement was assessed through the analysis of successive digital model scans taken every 4 weeks. Results: The changes accompanying the maxillary first molar distalization were evaluated by analyzing digital models showed the mean rate of tooth movement was 0.3 mm/month. Conclusion: The steel bar distalizer is an efficient and cheaper alternative in maxillary molar distalization.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measurement of the rate of maxillary molar distalization using steel bar distalizer

Osama,

Abdel Rahman,

Abdeldayem

2023

“…Class II malocclusion due to mandibular deficiency is one of the most common malocclusions encountered in the Egyptian population representing about 20.6% in the age between 11 and 14 years. 1 The splint-supported Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (Splint-supported FFRD) is an example of the splint mounted fixed Class II correctors that were first introduced in 1988.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Splint-Supported Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device Versus Class II Intermaxillary elastics For The Correction Of Class II Malocclusion ; A Retrospective Study

Elabbassy

Abdeldayem

2023

Objective: To compare between the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of the splint-supported FFRD and Class II intermaxillary elastics in growing patients with mild to moderate skeletal Class II malocclusion. Material and methods: The Data of 20 growing females who were treated with either the splintsupported FFRD (10 patients, mean age 12.37+0.79) or Class II intermaxillary elastics (10 patients, mean age 12.55+0,88) were retrieved. They were treated till reaching an edge-to edge incisor relationship. Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs were traced and analyzed to compare between the 2 groups. Results: The splint-supported FFRD showed some skeletal effects represented by significant decrease in SNA angle (-0.88+0.37), minor advancement of the mandible (SNB=0.52+0.27), and significant reduction in the ANB angle (-1.31+0.55). No statistically significant skeletal effects were found in the Class II elastics group. The maxillary incisors were more significantly retroclined in the splint-supported FFRD while more extruded in the Class II elastics group. The Class II elastics group showed more proclination of the mandibular incisors (11.75+6.78) compared to (8.88+1.35) in the splint-supported FFRD group, more extrusion of the lower molars (1.92+0.26) and more significant protrusion of the lower lip (1.32+0.56). The angle of convexity was only improved in the splint-supported FFRD group. Conclusion: Both treatment modalities were successful in treating mild to moderate Class II growing patients. Skeletal effects; mainly headgear effect, were only observed in the splint-supported FFRD group, while only dentoalveolar effects were noted in the Class II intermaxillary elastics group.

“…(1,6) Class III malocclusions constitute 11.38% of the Egyptian population. (7) Their etiology is comprised of genetic, ethnic, environmental, and habitual factors. (8) They can be of dental or skeletal origin.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Three dimensional evaluation of skeletal effects of two non-compliance appliances in the treatment of growing skeletal class III patients (A randomized controlled clinical trial)

Abbas,

Yousry,

Marzouk

et al. 2023

Background: This study evaluated threedimensionally the skeletal effects of two different intraoral force application systems for treating skeletally growing ClassIII patients(RCT). Methods: Thirty-three patients were recruited for this study and randomly allocated between three groups: GroupI(n=11)patients treated with CS2000(CSgroup/pulling force) GroupII(n=11)patients treated with reversed Forsus Fatigue Resistant(RFgroup/pushing force) and GroupIII(n=11)untreated control group(negative control). CBCT image was taken before treatment(T0) and after gaining a 2mm overjet or after an observation period of six months(T1). Skeletal measurements were assessed and compared between the two groups. Within group comparisons were done using Wilcoxon Sign Rank test. Results: Sagittally in RF group, OLp-Apt increased by3.60mm, OLp-Bpt decreased by-2.50mm and OLp-Pg decreased as well by-2.00mm(P<0.0001). While in CSgroup, OLp-Apt increased by3.10mm, OLp-Bpt decreased by-1.10mm and OLp-Pg decreased as well by-1.00mm(P<0.0001). Wits appraisal increased by5.00mm and5.50mm in RF and CS group accordingly after treatment(P<0.0001). There was an increase in OLs-Apt in both treatment groups by3.80mm in RFgroup and 5.00mm in CSgroup(P<0.0001). Vertically there was a statistical significant difference between two groups. ANS-Me decreased in RFgroup by-0.70mm and increased in CSgroup by2.00 mm. Both treatment groups demonstrated an increase in the SNA angle(2.6° in RF group and2.5° in CSgroup)(P<0.0001), a decrease in the SNB angle-1.00° in RFgroup and-2.00° in CSgroup(P<0.0001), hence increase ANB angle. Conclusions: CS2000 spring and reversed Forsus Fatigue Resistance device both promoted forward maxillary advancement in an average of 5months. Both appliances gave close effects to bone anchored maxillary protraction devices and functional appliances, removing compliance factor out of the equation.