Relationship between malocclusion severity and treatment success rate in Class II nonextraction therapy

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the treatment success rate of Class II malocclusion without extractions, according to initial severity. Methods: Class II subjects (n = 276) were divided into 2 groups according to the severity of the malocclusion. Group 1 comprised 144 patients with bilateral half Class II malocclusion at the initial mean age of 12.27 years. Group 2 comprised 132 patients who initially had bilateral complete Class II malocclusion at the initial mean age of 12.32 years. The patients` initial and final study models were evaluated with Grainger`s treatment priority index. Chi-square tests were used to test for differences between the 2 groups for categorical variables. Variables regarding occlusal results were compared with independent t tests. Results: Group 1 had a significantly better final occlusal result, a shorter treatment time, and a higher treatment efficiency index. Conclusions: Based on these results, it was concluded that bilateral half Class II malocclusion has a better treatment success rate than bilateral complete Class II malocclusion when treatment is conducted without extractions. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 274.e1-274.e8)

Influence of cephalometric characteristics on the occlusal success rate of Class II malocclusions treated with 2-and 4-premolar extraction protocols

Introduction: The objectives of this investigation were to compare the initial cephalometric characteristics of complete Class II Division 1 malocclusions treated with 2 or 4 premolar extractions and to verify their influence on the occlusal success rate of these treatment protocols. Methods: A sample of 98 records from patients with complete Class II Division 1 malocclusion was divided into 2 groups with the following characteristics: group 1 consisted of 55 patients treated with 2 maxillary first premolar extractions at an initial mean age of 13.07 years; group 2 included 43 patients treated with 4 premolar extractions, with an initial mean age of 12.92 years. Initial and final occlusal statuses were evaluated on dental casts with Grainger`s treatment priority index (TPI), and the initial cephalometric characteristics were obtained from the pretreatment cephalograms. The initial cephalometric characteristics and the initial and final occlusal statuses of the groups were compared with the t test. A multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the influence of all variables in the final TPI. Results: The 2-premolar extraction protocol provided a statistically smaller TPI and consequently a better occlusal success rate than the 4-premolar extraction protocol. The 4-premolar extraction group had statistically smaller apical base lengths, more vertical facial growth patterns, and greater hard- and soft-tissue convexities at pretreatment than the 2-premolar extraction group. However, the multiple regression analysis showed that only the extraction protocol was significantly associated with the final occlusal status. Conclusions: The initial cephalometric characteristics of the groups did not influence the occlusal success rate of these 2 treatment protocols.

Apical limit of root canal filling and its relationship with success on endodontic treatment of a mandibular molar: 11-year follow-up

Objective. This article discusses the relationship between apical limit of root canal filling and success on endodontic treatment of a mandibular molar. Study design. A mandibular right first molar with vital pulp was endodontically treated, and 3 years later periapical lesions on mesial and distal roots were detected. The canals were retreated and obturated to the same levels as in the previous treatment. Results. An 8-year radiographic follow-up showed repair of the periapical lesions on both roots. Conclusions. Results suggest that the apical limit of obturation seems to have no influence in the repair of periapical tissues in mandibular molars. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112: e48-e50)