Treatment outcomes of Class II malocclusion cases treated with miniscrew-anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial

Objective:To evaluate the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) used with miniscrew anchorage and compare them with those of the conventional Forsus FRD.Materials and Methods:This study was carried out on 38 patients. These patients were randomly allocated into three groups. The 14 patients in group 1 (aged 12.76 ± 1.0 years) were treated with the FRD appliance. In group 2, the 15 patients (aged 12.52 ± 1.12 years) received treatment with FRD using miniscrew anchorage, and the 9 patients in group 3 (aged 12.82 ± 0.9 years) received no treatment as a control group. Linear and angular measurements were made on lateral cephalograms before and immediately after Forsus treatment. Data were analyzed statistically using paired t-, ANOVA, and Tukey tests.Results:Class I molar relationship and overjet correction were achieved in both treatment groups. Although mandibular growth was statistically nonsignificant, there was a significant headgear effect on the maxilla. Mandibular incisor proclination, maxillary incisor retroclination, and distalization of maxillary molars were significant in both treatment groups. However, no significant differences were found between the treatment groups.Conclusions:Class II correction was mainly dentoalveolar in both treatment groups. Use of miniscrews with Forsus did not enhance mandibular forward growth nor prevent labial tipping of the mandibular incisors.     

Current trends in headgear use for the treatment of Class II malocclusions

Objective:To investigate American and Canadian orthodontists’ opinions and perceptions on the use of headgear in the treatment of Class II malocclusions.Materials and Methods:An online survey was sent to randomly chosen orthodontists (n  =  1000).Results:The study was completed by 948 orthodontists; 62% of the orthodontists indicated that they were using headgear in their practice. Those who were not using the appliance (38%) reported that this was mainly due to the availability of better Class II correctors in the market and lack of patient compliance. Of those who use headgear, 24% indicated that the emphasis on headgear use during their residency was an influential aspect of their decision making (P < .05). Nearly a quarter of those who do not use headgear reported that learning about other Class II correctors through continuing education courses was an important factor (P < .05). There was no difference between the headgear users and nonusers in the year and location of practice. Compared with previous studies, this study showed a decline in the use of headgear among orthodontists.Conclusions:Despite a decline, more than half of the orthodontists (62%) believe headgear is a viable treatment. Availability of Class II correctors in the market and familiarity with these appliances though continuing education courses are the reasons for the remaining 38% of orthodontists to abandon use of the headgear.     

Comparison of two implant-supported molar distalization systems

Objective:To examine skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of the Miniscrew Implant Supported Distalization System (MISDS) and the Bone-Anchored Pendulum Appliance (BAPA).Materials and Methods:Among 28 patients displaying Angle Class II malocclusion, 14 patients with a mean age of 14.8 ± 3.6 years treated with MISDS were included in the first group, and 14 patients with a mean age of 14.5 ± 1.5 years treated with BAPA were included in the second group. The pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were analyzed. Statistical evaluation was carried out using the paired Shapiro-Wilk test, the paired-sample t-test, and the unpaired t-test.Results:Upper posterior teeth were distalized successfully in both groups. Nearly bodily distalization was seen in the MISDS group, whereas significant distal tipping of the upper first molars was observed in the BAPA group (P < .001). There were no statistically significant changes in the sagittal position of the maxilla and mandible and in the position of the upper incisors as a result of treatment in either group.Conclusions:Both methods provided absolute anchorage for distalization of posterior teeth; however, almost translatory distal movement was encountered in the MISDS group, and substantial distal tipping of the maxillary molars accompanied distalization in the BAPA group.     

Long-term skeletal effects of high-pull headgear followed by fixed appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusions

Objectives:The long-term skeletal effects of Class II treatment in growing individuals using high-pull facebow headgear and fixed edgewise appliances have not been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term skeletal effects of treatment using high-pull headgear followed by fixed orthodontic appliances compared to an untreated control group.Materials and Methods:Changes in anteroposterior and vertical cephalometric measurements of 42 Class II subjects (n = 21, mean age = 10.7 years) before treatment, after headgear correction to Class I molar relationship, after treatment with fixed appliances, and after long-term retention (mean 4.1 years), were compared to similar changes in a matched control group (n = 21, mean age = 10.9 years) by multivariable linear regression models.Results:Compared to control, the study group displayed significant long-term horizontal restriction of A-point (SNA = −1.925°, P < .0001; FH-NA = −3.042°, P < .0001; linear measurement A-point to Vertical Reference = −3.859 mm, P < .0001) and reduction of the ANB angle (−1.767°, P < .0001), with no effect on mandibular horizontal growth or maxillary and mandibular vertical skeletal changes. A-point horizontal restriction and forward mandibular horizontal growth accompanied the study group correction to Class I molar, and these changes were stable long term.Conclusions:One phase treatment for Class II malocclusion with high-pull headgear followed by fixed orthodontic appliances resulted in correction to Class I molar through restriction of horizontal maxillary growth with continued horizontal mandibular growth and vertical skeletal changes unaffected. The anteroposterior molar correction and skeletal effects of this treatment were stable long term.     

Evaluation of the effects of the hybrid Pendulum in comparison with the conventional Pendulum appliance

Objective:To evaluate the anchorage control and distalization of maxillary molars with the hybrid Pendulum appliance and to compare the results with a conventional Pendulum appliance.Materials and Methods:This study was carried out on the pre-(T0) and post-(T1) treatment lateral cephalograms and dental casts of 43 patients with Angle Class II molar relationships who were treated with conventional or hybrid Pendulum appliances. The hybrid Pendulum (HP) group consisted of 22 patients (14 females; eight males; mean age 14.3 ± 2.43 years) and treatment results were compared with a conventional Pendulum appliance (CP) group, which consisted of 21 patients (15 females; six males; mean age 14.6 ± 3.39 years). Intragroup comparisons were made with Wilcoxon test and intergroup comparisons were made with Mann-Whitney U-test (P < .05).Results:The mean distalization duration was 0.70 ± 0.25 years in the HP group and 0.83 ± 0.4 years in the CP group. Maxillary first molars showed significant distal movement and tipping of 4.25 mm and 9.09° in the HP group, and 3.21 mm and 9.86° in the CP group. Loss of anchorage at the first premolars was significantly smaller in the HP appliance group compared to CP group. The second premolars distalized spontaneously in the HP group while they mesialized significantly in the CP group. Proclination and protrusion of maxillary incisors were greater with the CP appliance compared to the HP appliance.Conclusions:Maxillary molar distalization was achieved with both appliances. Mesialization of the anchorage unit was controlled successfully with the hybrid Pendulum; however, the conventional Pendulum appliance caused anchorage loss.     

Dental and skeletal changes in mild to moderate Class II malocclusions treated by either a Twin-block or Xbow appliance followed by full fixed orthodontic treatment

Objective:To compare the short-term skeletal and dental effects of two-phase orthodontic treatment including either a Twin-block or an XBow appliance.Materials and Methods:This was a retrospective clinical trial of 50 consecutive Class II cases treated in a private practice with either a Twin-block (25) or XBow (25) appliance followed by full fixed orthodontic treatment. To factor out growth, an untreated Class II control group (25) was considered.Results:A MANOVA of treatment/observation changes followed by univariate pairwise comparisons showed that the maxilla moved forward less in the treatment groups than in the control group. As for mandibular changes, the corpus length increase was larger in the Twin-block group by 3.9 mm. Dentally, mesial movement of mandibular molars was greater in both treatment groups. Although no distalization of maxillary molars was found in either treatment group, restriction of mesial movement of these teeth was seen in both treatment groups. Both treatment groups demonstrated increased mandibular incisor proclination with larger increases for the XBow group by 3.3°. The Wits value was decreased by 1.6 mm more in the Twin-block group. No sex-related differences were observed.Conclusions:Class II correction using an XBow or Twin-block followed by fixed appliances occurs through a relatively similar combination of dental and skeletal effects. An increase in mandibular incisor inclination for the XBow group and an increased corpus length for the Twin-block group were notable exceptions. No overall treatment length differences were seen.     

Dental and skeletal effects after total arch distalization using modified C-palatal plate on hypo- and hyperdivergent Class II malocclusions in adolescents

ObjectivesTo compare the dental and skeletal treatment effects after total arch distalization using modified C-palatal plates (MCPPs) on adolescent patients with hypo- and hyperdivergent Class II malocclusion.Materials and MethodsThe study group included 40 patients with Class II malocclusion (18 boys and 22 girls, mean age = 12.2 ± 1.4 years) treated with MCPPs. Fixed orthodontic treatment started with the distalizing process in both groups. Participants were divided into hypo- or hyperdivergent groups based on their pretreatment Frankfort mandibular plane angle (FMA) ≤22° or ≥28°, respectively. Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were digitized, and 23 variables were measured and compared for both groups using paired and independent t-tests.ResultsThe hyper- and hypodivergent groups showed 2.7 mm and 4.3 mm of first molar crown distalizing movement, respectively (P < .001). The hypodivergent group had a slight 2.2° crown distal tipping of first molars compared with 0.3° in the hyperdivergent group. After distalization, the FMA increased 3.1° and 0.3°, in the hypodivergent and hyperdivergent groups, respectively (P < .001). SNA decreased in the hypodivergent group, while other skeletal variables presented no statistically significant differences in the changes between the groups.ConclusionsThe hypodivergent group showed more distal and tipping movement of the maxillary first molar and increased FMA than the hyperdivergent group. Therefore, clinicians must consider vertical facial types when distalizing molars using MCPPs in Class II nonextraction treatment.     

Distalization pattern of the maxillary arch depending on the number of orthodontic miniscrews

Objective:To determine the effects of linear force vector(s) from interradicular miniscrews on the distalization pattern of the maxillary arch in adult Class II patients.Materials and Methods:Twenty-five adult patients with mild to moderate Class II dentition and minimal crowding were collected. Either single (group A, n  =  12) or dual (group B, n  =  13) miniscrews were inserted on the posterior interradicular area to deliver a distalizing force to the main archwire. The displacement patterns of maxillary incisors and molars were measured and compared.Results:Significant distalization in the molars and incisors was shown in both groups. Significantly greater distalization and intrusion of the first molar and intrusive displacement of the incisor, together with significant reduction of the mandibular plane, were noted in group B, in contrast to the rotation of the occlusal plane in group A.Conclusions:Interradicular miniscrews predictably induced total arch distalization, leading to the correction of Class II. Additional miniscrews in the premolar area appear to facilitate intrusion and distalization of the entire arch according to the position of the force vectors.     

Treatment effects of skeletally anchored Forsus FRD EZ and Herbst appliances: A retrospective clinical study

Objective:To evaluate the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the Forsus FRD appliance with miniplate anchorage inserted in the mandibular symphyses and to compare the findings with a well-matched control group treated with a Herbst appliance for the correction of a skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion.Materials and Methods:The sample consisted of 32 Class II subjects divided into two groups. Group I consisted of 16 patients (10 females and 6 males; mean age, 13.20 ± 1.33 years) treated using the Forsus FRD EZ appliance with miniplate anchorage inserted in the mandibular symphyses. Group II consisted of 16 patients (9 females and 7 males; mean age, 13.56 ± 1.27 years) treated using the Herbst appliance. Seventeen linear and 10 angular measurements were performed to evaluate and compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the appliances using paired and Student''s t-tests.Results:Both appliances were effective in correcting skeletal class II malocclusion and showed similar skeletal and soft tissue changes. The maxillary incisor was statistically significantly more retruded in the skeletally anchored Forsus FRD group (P < .01). The mandibular incisor was retruded in the skeletally anchored Forsus FRD group (−4.09° ± 5.12°), while it was protruded in the Herbst group (7.50° ± 3.98°) (P < .001).Conclusion:Although both appliances were successful in correcting the skeletal Class II malocclusion, the skeletally anchored Forsus FRD EZ appliance did so without protruding the mandibular incisors.     

Response of the maxillary dentition to a statically determinate one-couple system with tip-back mechanics: A prospective clinical trial

Objective:To quantify the effects of tip-back mechanics on the maxillary first molars and incisors.Materials and Methods:Sixteen subjects with Class II end-on malocclusion were treated with an intrusion arch to achieve distalization of the maxillary molar through tip-back mechanics. Lateral cephalograms were taken prior to molar tip-back (T1), after molar tip-back (T2), and after molar root uprighting (T3). Data were analyzed using the Friedman’s and Wilcoxon signed rank tests to evaluate differences in time points (P ≤ .016).Results:The maxillary first molar distalized 1.53 mm (P = .001) with 6.65° (P = .001) of distal tipping and 0.86 mm (P = .001) of extrusion at T2. Minor relapse of the first molar (mesial direction) was seen at T3. The maxillary incisors flared labially 0.4 mm, and the incisor root apex moved palatally 1.19 mm (P = .005) at T2. At T3, the incisor root apex moved palatally 1.5 mm (P = .003) from T1. An angular change from T1 of 3.31° (P = .008) and 3.53° (P = .014) was seen at T2 and T3, respectively, as a result of palatal root movement of the maxillary incisors.Conclusions:A significant amount of distalization of maxillary molars was attained at the crown level with tip-back mechanics. Palatal root angulation change was significant in the incisors with minimal anteroposterior movement of the incisal edge.     

Analisi degli effetti della terapia con distalizzazione molare

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to use published data to evaluate quantitavely the skeletal and dental effects of extraoral and intraoral molar-distalizing appliances in individuals with Class II malocclusion.

Materials and methods

We conducted a literature search that identified 37 prospective or retrospective clinical studies that met our predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data reported in these publications (SNA°, SNB°, FMA°, LFH, SN-PP°) were analyzed to identify the skeletal changes (sagittal and vertical) produced by the molar distalization appliances.

Results

Use of extraoral distalizing devices (Kloehn headgear) produced changes in the sagittal plane that consisted in reduced maxillary protrusion (SNA° -1.88°). Instead this value tends to increase (albeit nonsignificantly) in subjects treated with intraoral devices (+0.14°).Neither the extraoral nor intraoral distalizing appliances had any significant effects on the SNB° angle, which ranged from -0.55° to -0.35°, or on the inclination of the mandibular (FMA°) or palatal (SN-PP°) plane (which were +0.36° and +0.45°, respectively). Anteroinferior facial height (ANS-Me) tended to increase (mean +1.05 mm).In subjects treated with Kloehn headgear, significant distalization of the molars (3 mm) was associated with secondary distalization of the maxillary premolars and upper incisors, whereas in subjects treated with intraoral appliances, significant loss of anchorage was observed at the levels of the first and second premolars (mean 1.5 mm and 2.17 mm, respectively) and the central incisors (mean 1.43 mm).

Conclusions

Both the extra- and intraoral appliances were efficient in achieving a Class I molar relationship. Use of the Kloehn headgear allowed the maxillary molars to be distalized without altering the flaring of maxillary incisors. Noncompliant intramaxillary appliances (Pendulum, First Class, Distal-Jet And Jones-Jig) produced distalization of the molars that was inevitably associated with loss of anchorage, reflected by mesial movement of the incisor and premolars. This adverse effect of the intraoral appliances and the longer treatment times and high dependence on patient compliance of extraoral distalization should be considered.     

Dentoskeletal effects produced by a Jasper Jumper with an anterior bite plane

Objective:The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the dentoskeletal effects produced by a modified Jasper Jumper with an anterior bite plane for the correction of Class II division 1 malocclusion.Materials and Methods:A sample of 32 growing patients (mean age  =  11.9 ± 1.4 years) with Class II division 1 malocclusion and increased overbite were treated with a modified Jasper Jumper (JJ) and anterior bite plane protocol and compared with a matched control group of 30 subjects with untreated Class II malocclusion (mean age 12.2 ± 0.8 years). Lateral cephalograms were taken before treatment (T1) and at the end of comprehensive treatment (T2). Mean treatment duration was 2.1 ± 0.4 years. The T1–T2 changes in the two groups were compared with Student’s t-tests for independent samples.Results:The JJ group was successfully treated to a Class I occlusal relationship with a significant reduction in overjet (–3.9 mm, P < .001) and overbite (–3.1 mm, P < .001). The JJ group exhibited a significant increase in mandibular length and a significant improvement in maxillomandibular sagittal skeletal relationships. The lower incisors were significantly proclined, while the lower first molars demonstrated significant movement in a mesial direction.Conclusions:Use of a modified JJ appliance and anterior bite plane is an effective protocol for the treatment of Class II malocclusion with increased overbite and greater skeletal (75%) than dentoalveolar (25%) effects mainly at the mandibular level.     

Evaluation of adolescent and adult patients treated with the Carriere Motion Class III appliance followed by fixed appliances

ObjectivesTo determine dentoalveolar and skeletal effects produced in mature patients by the Carriere Motion Class III (CM3) appliance followed by fixed appliances.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective study evaluated 32 patients at three time points: T1 (initial), T2 (removal of CM3), and T3 (posttreatment). Serial cephalograms were traced and digitized, and best-fit regional superimpositions were constructed. Eleven linear and 7 angular variables were measured. The starting forms of the CM3 patients were compared with a sample of untreated subjects with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces.ResultsThe CM3 phase lasted 6.3 months, followed by a phase of fixed appliances lasting 12.9 months; the total duration of treatment was 19.2 months. Minimal skeletal changes were measured sagittally, with only a slight increase in lower anterior facial height observed during treatment. Most treatment changes were dentoalveolar in nature. Wits appraisal increased 4.0 mm during treatment. The molar relationship improved by 6.0 mm during phase I, a value that rebounded slightly during phase II, resulting in an improvement toward Class I of 4.8 mm. Best-fit regional superimpositions revealed anterior movement of upper molars relative to the maxilla and posterior movement of lower molars relative to the mandible.ConclusionsThe Carriere Motion Class III appliance is an effective and efficient method of resolving occlusal problems in minimally growing Class III patients. Primary treatment effects are dentoalveolar in nature with minimal skeletal alterations.     

A comparison of treatment effects of total arch distalization using modified C-palatal plate vs buccal miniscrews

Objective:The purpose of this study was to compare the treatment effects of palatally vs buccally placed temporary anchorage devices.Materials and Methods:Of 40 Class II division 1 malocclusion patients, 22 were treated with modified C-palatal plate (MCPP) appliances (age 21.9 ± 6.6 years), and 18 (age 24.2 ± 6.8 years) were treated with buccally placed miniscrews between the maxillary first molar and second premolar. A total of 26 linear and angular measurements were analyzed on pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms. Multivariate analysis of variance was performed to evaluate the treatment effects within each group and to compare the effects between groups.Results:Overall, the MCPP appliances showed 4.2 mm of distalization, 1.6 mm of intrusion of the first molar with 2° tipping, and 0.8 mm extrusion of incisors. The miniscrew group resulted in 2.0 mm of distalization, 0.1 mm intrusion of the first molar with 7.2° tipping, and 0.3 mm of incisor extrusion. Regarding soft tissue change, in the MCPP group, the upper lip was significantly retracted (P < .001).Conclusions:Comparing the treatment effects between MCPP appliances and buccal miniscrews, the MCPP appliances showed greater distalization and intrusion with less distal tipping of the first molar and more extrusion of the incisor compared to the buccal miniscrews.     

Treatment changes of hypo- and hyperdivergent Class II Herbst patients

Objectives:To determine the relative effects of Herbst appliance therapy in hypo- and hyperdivergent patients.Materials and Methods:The treated group included 45 growing Class II, division 1, patients treated with stainless steel crown Herbst appliances, followed by fixed edgewise appliances. The untreated control group consisted of 45 Class II, division 1, subjects, matched to the treated sample based on Angle classification, age, sex, and pretreatment mandibular plane angle (MPA). Subjects were categorized as hypo- or hyperdivergent based on their MPAs. Pre- and posttreatment cephalograms were traced and superimposed on cranial base and mandibular structures.Results:The primary effect of the Herbst in terms of maxillomandibular correction was in the maxilla. It significantly restricted maxillary growth, producing a “headgear effect.” Mandibular treatment changes depended on divergence. Hyperdivergent patients experienced a deleterious backward true mandibular rotation with Herbst treatment. Hypodivergent patients, as well as untreated hypo- and hyperdivergent controls, underwent forward true mandibular rotation. However, hypodivergent chins did not advance any more than expected for untreated hypodivergent Class II patients.Conclusions:Hypo- and hyperdivergent patients benefit from the Herbst''s headgear effect. While the mandibular growth of hypodivergent patients overcomes the negative rotational effects, hyperdivergent patients undergo a deleterious backward mandibular rotation and increases in facial height.     

Treatment of Class II, division 2 in the late growth period

The Deckbiss with skeletal Class II jaw relationship sometimes presents a considerable therapeutic problem, particularly in the late growth period (DP3U), as regards the coordination of dental and skeletal treatment objectives. An effective treatment approach was demonstrated: a modified Herbst appliance used simultaneously with fixed appliances in the maxilla. The sample comprised 12 male (14.0±0.9 years old) and 10 female (12.3±0.4 years old) patients. Correction of the distal occlusion was achieved in all patients by means of the Herbst appliance, which was removed after an average time period of 6.4±0.2 months. In the mandible the multibracket appliances were then immediately inserted, and Class II elastics were used for retention. Maximum anchorage was required in the maxilla as well as in the mandible. Complete diagnostic records were made at the begnning of the treatment as well as 6 and 12 months later, in order to document skeletal and dental changes.A dental and skeletal Class I relationship was achieved in all cases. A significant improvement was recorded in the vertical jaw base relationship; this was still stable after a period of 12 months. In the dental area in particular, a so-called high-pull headgear effect (intrusion and distalization 16, 26) and intrusion of teeth 34, 44 were registered. Only a minor protrusion of the mandibular incisors was observed. Reinforcement of the bands reduced the failure rate significantly.The Herbst appliance does not represent a standard treatment for Class II. Its indication range is limited.     

Treatment Effects of Twin-Block and Mandibular Protraction Appliance-IV in the Correction of Class II Malocclusion

Objective:To evaluate the treatment effects of twin-block and Mandibular Protraction Appliance-IV (MPA-IV) in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion.Methods:Fifty North Indian girls with Class II division 1 malocclusion, in the age range of 9–13 years, were chosen. The subjects were divided among a control group (n  =  10), a twin-block group (n  =  25), and an MPA group (n  =  15). Pre–follow-up and post–follow-up lateral cephalograms of control subjects and pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of the treatment subjects were traced manually and subjected to a pitchfork analysis.Results:Neither twin-block nor MPA-IV significantly restricted the forward growth of maxilla. Mandibular growth and improvement in the sagittal skeletal relation were significantly greater in the twin-block subjects. Distal movement of the maxillary dentition and mesial movement of the mandibular dentition were more prominent in the MPA-IV subjects. Molar correction and overjet reductions were significantly greater in the treatment subjects (P < .001).Conclusion:Twin-block and MPA-IV were effective in correcting the molar relationships and reducing the overjet in Class II division 1 malocclusion subjects. However, twin-block contributed more skeletal effects than MPA-IV for the correction of Class II malocclusion.     

Asymmetric rapid maxillary expansion in true unilateral crossbite malocclusion: A prospective controlled clinical study

Objective:To investigate the short-term effects of the asymmetric rapid maxillary (ARME) appliance on the vertical, sagittal, and transverse planes in patients with true unilateral posterior crossbite.Materials and Methods:Subjects were divided into two groups. The treatment group was comprised of 21 patients with unilateral posterior crossbite (mean age  =  13.3 ± 2.1 years). Members of this group were treated with the ARME appliance. The control group was comprised of 17 patients with Angle Class I who were kept under observation (mean age  =  12.3 ± 0.8 years). Lateral and frontal cephalograms were taken before the expansion (T1), immediately after expansion (T2), and at postexpansion retention (T3) in the treatment group and at preobservation (T1) and postobservation (T2) in the control group. A total of 34 measurements were assessed on cephalograms. For statistical analysis, the Wilcoxon test and analysis of covariance were used.Results:The ARME appliance produced significant increases in nasal, maxillary base, upper arch, and lower arch dimensions (P < .01) and a clockwise rotation of the occlusal plane (P  =  .001).Conclusion:The ARME appliance created asymmetric increments in the transversal dimensions of the nose, maxilla, and upper arch in the short term. Asymmetric expansion therapy for subjects with unilateral maxillary deficiency may provide satisfactory outcomes in adolescents, with the exception of mandibular arch expansion. The triangular pattern of expansion caused clockwise rotation of the mandible and the occlusal plane and produced significant alterations in the vertical facial dimensions, whereas it created no displacement in maxilla in the sagittal plane.     

Treatment effects of the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance in patients with Class II skeletal malocclusions

Objective:To examine the changes produced by the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance (MARA) appliance and compare the treatment effects to an untreated Class II control group.Materials and Methods:Thirty consecutively treated patients were matched with an untreated control group. Lateral cephalograms were taken at T1, 5 months pre-MARA (CVMS 2.7); T2, immediately after MARA removal and prior to placement of full fixed edgewise appliances (CVMS 4.2); and T3, at least 2 years after MARA removal and completion of edgewise treatment (CVMS 5.4). The mean age of the MARA patients was 11.9 years for boys and 10.8 years for girls. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess if the samples were morphologically comparable at the outset and to test if there were significant differences between the groups for the various increments of change. Given a significant ANOVA, the source of the difference was explored via Tukey-Kramer tests.Results:Restriction of maxillary growth and no significant mandibular growth were observed with the MARA appliance. The Class II correction was obtained mainly by slight maxillary molar distalization and intrusion, in addition to mesial migration of the lower molars and flaring of the lower incisors. No vertical effect was observed with this appliance.Conclusion:The MARA appliance was effective in the treatment of Class II malocclusions. Restriction of maxillary growth and dentoalveolar changes in the maxillary and mandibular arches were responsible for the correction of the Class II malocclusion. Significant mandibular growth did not contribute to this correction.     

Effects of skeletally anchored Class II elastics: A pilot study and new approach for treating Class II malocclusion

Objective:To evaluate the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of skeletally anchored Class II elastics and compare them with a matched control group treated by a monobloc appliance for the correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion.Materials and Methods:Twelve patients (6 girls, 6 boys) were randomly divided into two groups. In the elastics group, six patients (12.9 ± 1.5 years of age; 3 boys, 3 girls) were treated with skeletally anchored Class II elastics. Two miniplates were placed bilaterally at the ramus of the mandible and the other two miniplates were placed at the aperture piriformis area of the maxilla. In the monobloc group (3 boys and 3 girls; mean age, 12.3 ± 1.6 years), patients used the monobloc appliance. The changes observed in each phase of treatment were evaluated using the Wilcoxon matched-pair sign test. Intergroup comparisons at the initial phase of treatment were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test.Results:There were statistically significant group differences in Co-Gn, B-VRL, U1-PP, U1-VRL, Ls-VRL, with significant increases in these parameters in the elastics group (P < .05). The mandibular incisors were protruded in the monobloc group (5.45 ± 1.23°), whereas they were retruded in the elastics group (−3.01 ± 1.66°; P < .01).Conclusions:The undesirable dentoalveolar effects of the monobloc appliance were eliminated by using miniplate anchorage. Favorable skeletal outcomes can be achieved by skeletal anchorage therapies which could be an alternative to treat skeletal Class II patients with mandibular deficiency.