Differential diagnosis and treatment planning for early mixed dentition malocclusions

Dugoni, Steven A.; Aubert, Maryse; Baumrind, Sheldon

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.021

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study is part of a larger investigation of a specific method of ''comprehensive mixed dentition treatment'' developed in the mixed dentition clinic at the University of the Pacific School of Dentistry. 7 The sample was drawn retrospectively from the clinical practices of three clinicians highly experienced in this mixed dentition treatment approach (Table 1). For the purposes of this paper, samples from the three practices were combined.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following phase 1 treatment, retainers were delivered and the patients were seen regularly every 2-4 months during a supervision phase, which was designed to monitor the patient's growth and occlusal development to preserve the gains made in phase 1 treatment. 7,8 Upon eruption of the permanent second molars, the patients who underwent phase 1 treatment were reexamined, and a decision was made as to further treatment. Phase 2 treatment ranged from partial fixed appliances in a single arch to full fixed appliances in both arches with or without extractions.…”

Section: Treatment Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A retrospective study of Class II mixed-dentition treatment

Oh¹,

Baumrind

Korn

et al. 2016

The Angle Orthodontist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Treatment Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

A retrospective study of Class II mixed-dentition treatment

Oh¹,

Baumrind

Korn

et al. 2016

The Angle Orthodontist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, patients who were treated with only one phase had fewer visits, shorter treatment times and lower orthodontic fees. Also, 82% of the early treatment patients did not require premolar extractions in the permanent dentition (Dugoni 2006). …”

Section: Comparison Of One-and Two-phase Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Department of Orthodontics at the University of Pacific conducted a randomized retrospective study to evaluate changes in the early mixed dentition (Dugoni 2006). Subjects were chosen from patients who came for evaluation during the early to mid mixed dentition stage, which yielded the following three groups: (1) delayed full orthodontic treatment (i.e., no early treatment), (2) phase 1 treatment only, and (3) full 2 phase treatment.…”

Section: Comparison Of One-and Two-phase Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

http://etd.uthsc.edu/WORLD-ACCESS/Sander/2009-019-Sander.pdf

Sander¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…According to Dugoni (1998) benefits of treating Class II malocclusions in the early mixed dentition include the following: (1) reduced incidence of premolar extraction, (2) reduced need for surgical orthodontics, (3) better patient cooperation, (4) reduced incidence of root resorption, and (5) reduced incidence of ectopic cuspid eruptions. The Department of Orthodontics at the University of the Pacific is conducting a randomized retrospective study to evaluate treatment changes during early mixed dentition treatment (Dugoni 2006). The study sample was restricted to patients who originally were evaluated in the early and middle mixed dentition yielding three study groups: (1) delayed treatment (i.e., no treatment), (2) phase 1 treatment only, and (3) two-phase treatment.…”

Section: Comparison Of One-and Two-phase Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cephalometric Evaluation of Bionator Therapy in the Early Treatment of Class II Malocclusions

Sawrie¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early or two-phase orthodontic treatment of Class II malocclusions is a debated topic in orthodontic circles primarily because the benefits of early intervention have not been consistently reproduced among researchers. The present study was a retrospective analysis of cephalograms from patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusions at the start of treatment. These were 50 consecutively treated youths who received phase 1 (early) treatment with a Bionator appliance and later treatment with full appliances (all treated by a single clinician). The comparison group consisted subjects treated in a single phase with fixed Edgewise appliances only. Importantly, subjects in the two samples were matched, on a one-to-one basis, for demographic and cephalometric variables (ANB, SNA, SNB, NAP, FMA) to ensure comparability in the nature and severity of the malocclusions. The key question was whether the cephalometric results at the end of treatment were comparable between groups. Two-phase subjects were treated on average 1.4 years longer than the one-phase group, though this measure of clock time may obscure the greater ease of treatment chair side. Neither of out two integumental variables (Z angle, E plane) differed statistically, but two key skeletal variables did differ, namely ANB and NAP. ANB was significantly smaller ( x = 2.6°) in the twophase group than in the one-phase group ( x = 3.7°), and NAP averaged 2.7º in iv the two-phase group compared to a mean of 4.8º in the one-phase group.Consequently, the two-phase group was discernibly more orthognathic at the end of treatment, with most of the correction coming from mandibular growth rather than maxillary restriction. None of the dental variables differed statistically except the position of the maxillary incisors which were slightly more proclined in the two-phase group, and this was due to operator preference. The two-phase subjects had a lower rate of premolar extraction (12% vs 84%) than the one-phase subjects. Overall, the two-phase group achieved a better bony facial profile, with the majority of the skeletal and dental correction occurring during the first phase of treatment. These favorable results contrast with published randomized clinical trials, possibly because of differences in patient selection and appliance design. Our results do support the value of early intervention, though it is not known whether the statistically significant improvements in the facial profile are large enough to be perceptible to the patient and parents.

show abstract

Differential diagnosis and treatment planning for early mixed dentition malocclusions

Cited by 9 publications

References 7 publications

A retrospective study of Class II mixed-dentition treatment

A retrospective study of Class II mixed-dentition treatment

http://etd.uthsc.edu/WORLD-ACCESS/Sander/2009-019-Sander.pdf

Cephalometric Evaluation of Bionator Therapy in the Early Treatment of Class II Malocclusions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About