Treatment and stability of Class II Division 2 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A systematic review

Millett, Declan T; Cunningham, Susan; O’Brien, Kevin; Benson, Philip; Oliveira, César de

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.022

Cited by 42 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The anti-clockwise rotation during puberal growth spurt, representative of brachiocephalic pattern, was not observed probably due the molar extrusions, corroborating with the studies of some authors [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] . The total cephalometric superimposition between T 0 and T 1 of Group 2 showed forward displacement and anticlockwise rotation of the mandible, together with profile improvement.…”

supporting

confidence: 77%

“…The main strategy of deep bite treatment for both groups consisted of combined extrusion of the posterior teeth, intrusion and vestibular inclination of the anterior teeth (maxillary and mandibular incisors). This is confirmed in the literature because the decision of extrusion or intrusion should be based on skeletal pattern, vertical pattern, facial esthetic, growth spurt, occlusal plane, severity of final malocclusion, occlusion stability or the combination of these factors 1,4-7,10, [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] . At first in Group 1 segmented arches (Rickets' technique) 0.018´x 0.025´ were used for intrusion and projection of maxillary and mandibular incisors, enabling the decrease of deep overbite, with anterior brackets glued in the most possible incisal level.…”

Section: Group 2 N=20mentioning

confidence: 63%

“…For Nanda 4 , the stability of deep bite treatment depends on specific dental correction (intrusion, extrusion or inclination), growth spurt and neuromuscular adaptation. The few studies that dealt with this subject indicate that active treatment is able to induce a moderate improvement of the overbite, but unfortunately the few studies assessing the effects of orthodontic treatment in deep bite patients either did not include untreated control subjects [13][14][15][16][17][18] or used controls with normal overbite values 19 . Due to the scarcity of studies investigating skeletal and dental modifications caused by deep overbite treatment, two types of biomechanics with fixed appliances were searched.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of two types of biomecanics for deep overbite correction

Lira¹,

Alexandrino²

2015

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To compare two types of treatment for Class II deep overbite malocclusion assessing maxillary and mandibular arches behavior in subjects submitted to full orthodontic treatment with standard edgewise appliance and those who used straight wire appliance. Methods: The sample consisted of 50 patients treated with full fixed appliances either with edgewise appliance (n=25, Group 1), or with straight wire appliance (n=25, Group 2). In both groups lateral cephalometric radiographs were compared with those done at the beginning of treatment and at its end, in order to quantify the cephalometric measures (8 linear and 6 angular) presenting the maxillary and mandibular arches behavior in the anteroposterior and vertical directions. All patients were treated without extraction or use of Class II intermaxillary elastics during the full orthodontic treatment. Results: In both groups the treatment of malocclusion contributed for mandibular forward displacement, reduction of deep overbite and overjet, reduction of mandibular plane with anti-clockwise rotation and labial projection of maxillary incisors. Conclusions: In both groups the sample showed favorable mandibular displacement, reduction of facial convexity, and profile improvement with anti-clockwise rotation. The correction of deep overbite was due to labial projection and intrusion of maxillary incisors.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Group 2 N=20mentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of two types of biomecanics for deep overbite correction

Lira¹,

Alexandrino²

2015

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incidence of this malocclusion ranges from 35% to 42%, and may attain up to 50% of the clinical cases treated by orthodontists. 1,2 An infinite variety of appliances are available for the orthopedic correction of Class II malocclusion; these include both intraoral and extraoral appliances. 3,4,5,6 Among the intraoral orthopedic appliances,…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Esthetic perception of facial profile after treatment with the Thurow appliance

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this article was to investigate the perception of esthetic changes in the facial profile of bilateral Class II patients treated with the Modified Thurow Appliance for extraoral treatment. Silhouettes were traced of profiles of patients who initially presented a bilateral Class II molar relationship and who, post-treatment, presented molars in a Class I relationship. Three groups were formed: the first composed of patients with maxillary protrusion (SNA >84°), the second with maxillary retrusion (SNA <80°), and the third with a wellpositioned maxilla (SNA 80-84°). A panel of 200 lay evaluators judged the profile esthetics by a randomized drawing of the silhouettes. The multiple analysis results showed that the profile esthetic scores for the three positions of the maxilla were greatly influenced by significant interactions with the characteristics (like sex and age) of the evaluators: retrusive maxilla (Score *Age Group, p < 0.001), normal maxilla (Score *Sex, p = 0.024; Score *Age Group, p = 0.050) and protrusive maxilla (Score *Age Group, p < 0.001). It was observed that the profile of Class II patients with protrusion, normal relationship and retrusion of the maxilla, improved in their esthetic post-treatment result; however, the evaluators showed greater satisfaction with the groups of protrusion and normal position of the maxilla. The Modified Thurow Appliance provided significant improvements in the esthetics of the profile of patients who presented protrusion and normal position of the maxilla. However, its use was not the best treatment option for patients with maxillary retrusion.

show abstract

“…Inter-rater agreement improved as the peer assessment rating score increased, but the correlation was weak, and not consistent for all examiners. A 2012 systematic review of the literature by Millett et al 2 revealed that ''highly biased evidence exists with regard to management and stability of Class II division 2 malocclusion.'' Generally, orthodontists are recognized for their expertise.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hard Evidence and Soft Lighting

Samson¹

2014

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment and stability of Class II Division 2 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A systematic review

Cited by 42 publications

References 45 publications

Comparison of two types of biomecanics for deep overbite correction

Comparison of two types of biomecanics for deep overbite correction

Esthetic perception of facial profile after treatment with the Thurow appliance

Hard Evidence and Soft Lighting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About