Overjet reduction and molar correction in fixed appliance treatment of Class II, Division 1, malocclusions: Sagittal and vertical components

Nelson, Birgitta; Hansen, Ken; Hägg, Urban

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70311-2

Cited by 49 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5,6,10,20,24 The percentages also showed that the overjet reduction and the improvement in the molar relationship were mainly dental, as expected. [19][20][21]24 It was apparent that significant dentoalveolar changes did occur within the treatment groups when compared with the control group. The exceptions were U6-FH distance in the UA group, and the vertical linear movement of the upper incisors (U1-FH) in both of the treatment groups.…”

Section: Treatment Effectssupporting

confidence: 73%

“…18 In the other previous studies, the mean correction time of dental relationships with Class II elastics were also reported to be between 6 months and 1.3 years. 4,5,19,20 Therefore, it is obvious that the RMCC appliance system significantly reduced the elastic application time. This is also important in motivating the patients.…”

Section: Treatment Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 Although numerous suggestions have been made about the application of Class II elastics, there are surprisingly few studies in the literature that have examined their isolated effects, and most of them are based on Begg mechanics. 4,5,[19][20][21] Their effects were compared within two different fixed appliance systems by Ellen et al, 4 who found no difference in lower molar anchorage loss between the use of Class II elastics with bioprogressive and with standard edgewise techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Two Different Applications of Class II Elastics with Nonextraction Segmental Techniques

Uzel

Toroğlu

2007

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the relative effects of Class II elastics applied directly with utility arches (UAs) or with the Reciprocal Mini-Chin Cup (RMCC) appliance. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion were included. Fifteen of them were treated with the RMCC appliance and the other 15 treated with Class II elastics on UAs. Lateral cephalograms of an additional 15 untreated persons having the same characteristics as the treatment groups were used as a control group. Results: The mean control period was 10 months. Class I molar and canine relationships were achieved in a mean treatment time of 4.6 months with the RMCC appliance and in 8.5 months with the elastics on UAs. The amount of overjet reduction was 4.7 mm in the RMCC group (87.87% dental) and 5.2 mm in the UA group (80.76% dental). The molar correction was 4.5 mm in the RMCC group (87.36% dental) and 2.0 mm in the UA group (51.47% dental). The anterior lower facial height increased in both of the treatment groups. Conclusions:The RMCC appliance is a valuable alternative for Class II elastic use in Class II cases in which the upper molars need to be moved to the distal more than the upper incisors.

show abstract

Section: Treatment Effectssupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Treatment Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two Different Applications of Class II Elastics with Nonextraction Segmental Techniques

Uzel

Toroğlu

2007

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[22][23][24] Mesial movement of the maxilla is commonly found in elastics patients, even with the use of headgear. 23,24 Nonextraction Class II patients treated with standard edgewise appliances, Class II elastics, and headgears show mandibular displacements and dental movements accounting for approximately 66% and 22% of the Class II correction, and distal maxillary molar movement contributed another 29%; anterior maxillary skeletal movements limit the correction by approximately 20%. 23 The use of a prescription appliance without headgear could account for the maxillary molar anchorage loss observed in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23,25 Nelson et al showed similar amounts of molar correction in patients successfully treated with Class II elastics and the Begg appliance. 24 The vertical relationships of the teeth and occlusal plane in the elastics patients indicate treatment modifications of normal growth. Maxillary and mandibular molars, as well as the maxillary incisors, erupted during treatment, as previously reported for elastics treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Class II Non-Extraction Patients Treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device Versus Intermaxillary Elastics

Jones

Buschang

Kim

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

153

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) as a compliance-free alternative to Class II elastics. Materials and Methods: A sample of 34 (14 female, 20 male) consecutively treated nonextraction FRD patients (12.6 years of age) were matched with a sample of 34 (14 female, 20 male) consecutively treated nonextraction Class II elastics patients (12.2 years of age) based on four pretreatment variables (ANB, L1-GoMe, SN-GoMe, and treatment duration). Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs were traced and analyzed using the pitchfork analysis and a vertical cephalometric analysis. t-Tests were used to evaluate group differences. Group differences were evaluated using t-tests. Results:No statistically significant differences were found in the treatment changes between the groups. There was a general trend for mesial movement of the maxilla, mandible, and dentition during treatment for both groups. The mandibular skeletal advancement and dental movements were greater than those in the maxilla, which accounted for the Class II correction. Lower incisor proclination was evident in both groups. Vertically, the maxillary and mandibular molars erupted during treatment in both groups, while lower incisors proclined. With the exception of lower molar mesial movements and total molar correction, which were significantly (P Ͻ .05) greater in the Forsus group, there were no statistically significant group differences in the treatment changes. Conclusions:The Forsus FRD is an acceptable substitute for Class II elastics for noncompliant patients.

show abstract

Effect of various active reminders via mobile phone on cooperation of orthodontic teenage patients regarding oral hygiene and Class II elastics use

Şenocak,

Camcı

2024

J Orofac Orthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overjet reduction and molar correction in fixed appliance treatment of Class II, Division 1, malocclusions: Sagittal and vertical components

Cited by 49 publications

References 8 publications

Two Different Applications of Class II Elastics with Nonextraction Segmental Techniques

Two Different Applications of Class II Elastics with Nonextraction Segmental Techniques

Class II Non-Extraction Patients Treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device Versus Intermaxillary Elastics

Effect of various active reminders via mobile phone on cooperation of orthodontic teenage patients regarding oral hygiene and Class II elastics use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About