Cephalometric assessment of vertical control in the treatment of class II malocclusion with a combined maxillary splint

Abstract

Vertical control is one of the primary objectives sought by orthodontists when treating malocclusions in hyperdivergent individuals. This investigation aimed at assessing vertical control, by cephalometric measurements, during the treatment of Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Thirty cases, selected from the files of the São Leopoldo Mandic Dental Research Center, Brazil, of subjects with Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion and facial hyperdivergence, were used in this study. The patients were treated using a combined extraoral appliance during a mean treatment time of 1.1 years. Pre-and posttreatment cephalometric measurements were compared to assess vertical control. The results were submitted to ANOVA (p = 5%). The ANOVA test revealed no statistically significant difference between the pretreatment and posttreatment values of OP (Occlusal plane angle) and SN.MP. While there was a decrease in Y-axis, FMA, and PP.MP, there was an increase in SN.PP, Co-Go, AFH, PFH, and FHI. It was concluded that the divergence in the facial lower third of the patients did not increase, suggesting that the combined extraoral appliance with the line of force application directed to the resistance center of the maxilla was effective in treating Angle Class II malocclusion in hyperdivergent subjects.

Correlations between dentoskeletal variables and deep bite in Class II Division 1 individuals

“…[2][3][4][5] The treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion can be accomplished by several methods. [6][7][8][9][10] Treatment considerations include the patient's facial profile, skeletal pattern, growth potential, and severity of the malocclusion. 6 A deep overbite can be corrected by intrusion of anterior teeth or extrusion of posterior teeth, or a combination of both.…”

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

“…All patients submitted to orthodontic treatment presented low mandibular plane, which is a crucial factor for using cervical traction as mentioned in other studies 2,5,17 . The mean values for SNGoGn, SNGoMe, CdGoGn and FMA angles showed a significant reduction in the time interval, suggesting that rotation of the mandible is ruled by the direction and amount of condylar growth and remodeling at the lower border of the mandible in both groups (Table 2) 15, [19][20] .…”

“…This fact may be supported by the anterior positioning of the mandible during facial growth (Tables 2 and 3) as well as bone apposition in the pogonion region in both groups 5,17 .…”

“…Similar results were also found by other authors, who reported a residual mandibular growth 11,22,24 . The apposition in the region of pogonion occurs continuously even after the active treatment is finished [17][18][19] . Full corrective orthodontic treatment, using concurrently…”

Dental and skeletal effects of combined headgear used alone or in association with rapid maxillary expansion

“… 1 Headgear followed by the use of full fixed orthodontic appliance can be considered the gold standard treatment for children and adolescents with skeletal Class II malocclusion. 2 Extraoral forces hold maxillary forward displacement while the mandible grows forward naturally. Since the 1950s, orthodontists have used headgears successfully and produced favorable dental and orthopedic effects proved by cephalometric analysis.…”